Federal Gov has a surplus in Jan., Budget deficit cut in half from last Jan. deficit.

[BigRedChief]

I thought that deficit was causing an economic catastrophe.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2LJBzQ5GW

January surplus shrinks 2013 US budget deficit


The federal government reported a rare surplus for January and is on track to run its smallest annual budget deficit since President Obama took office.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the government took in a surplus of $2.9 billion in January. That's the first monthly surplus since April, a month that benefited from income tax payments.


January's budget benefited from an estimated $9 billion in extra revenue from higher Social Security taxes. That helped lowered the deficit through the first four months of the budget year to $290.4 billion -- nearly $60 billion lower than the same period a year ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8161WV20120207

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91615R20130207

(Reuters) - The budget deficit shrank by nearly half in January compared to a year earlier as tax collections from individuals rose and outlays fell, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.


The CBO said it expects the Treasury Department to report a $27 billion deficit for January, versus a $50 billion deficit in January 2011.
The January budget gap will bring the total deficit for the first four months of fiscal 2012 to $349 billion, a decrease of about $70 billion from the same period of fiscal 2011.


The CBO last week predicted that the United States would rack up a $1-trillion-plus deficit for a fourth straight year, forecasting a $1.08 trillion gap for fiscal 2012, which ends on September 30. The fiscal 2011 U.S. deficit was $1.3 trillion.


January U.S. receipts were up about $9 billion, or 4 percent from a year earlier, largely because of higher withholdings of individual income and payroll taxes, CBO said.


Outlays were $13 billion, or 5 percent, lower in January 2012 than they were a year earlier. But because of the New Year's holiday, some benefit payments were shifted into December, reducing outlays during the month.


Were it not for these timing changes, the January deficit would have been slightly higher at about $31 billion, CBO said.


The Treasury is expected to report official January budget details on Friday.
(Reporting By David Lawder; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

[HonestChieffan]

Call me when February is reported.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

As usual I disagree with you, because you are wrong. Solving problems at once isn't mutually exclusive. There is plenty of room for the military budget to come down that would pay for all these things. Except the Ding Dong crisis, **** ding dongs.

The defense budget isn't a piggy bank for your reckless spending ideas.

[Direckshun]

Good news:

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The defense budget isn't a piggy bank for your reckless spending ideas.

Nobody said it was. It's also not an eternal bog that you keep endlessly throwing money into because you can. It, just like everything else, should have limits. Those limits have been passed a ways back.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Nobody said it was. It's also not an eternal bog that you keep endlessly throwing money into because you can. It, just like everything else, should have limits. Those limits have been passed a ways back.

Defense spending has been declining as a share of the budget and as a share of GDP for the past several decades. Meanwhile, entitlement spending (and the cost of the debt) is exploding. Cutting the defense budget in order to fund domestic programs that aren't essential, is foolish, particularly when it's coming from people who haven't even figured out why we have a fiscal problem in the first place.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Defense spending has been declining as a share of the budget and as a share of GDP for the past several decades. Meanwhile, entitlement spending (and the cost of the debt) is exploding. Cutting the defense budget in order to fund domestic programs that aren't essential, is foolish, particularly when it's coming from people who haven't even figured out why we have a fiscal problem in the first place.

I would say that it should decline as a percentage of budget and GD as those numbers are always rising however spending is relatively static. It's pretty well set up 5 times the next guy. With that in mind, I fail to see your point.

I disagree that the health of Americans is not essential and I'm pretty well versed in why we have a fiscal problem. I said it once and I will say it again. Fixing one problem isn't mutually exclusive to fixing any others.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I would say that it should decline as a percentage of budget and GD as those numbers are always rising however spending is relatively static. It's pretty well set up 5 times the next guy. With that in mind, I fail to see your point.

I disagree that the health of Americans is not essential and I'm pretty well versed in why we have a fiscal problem. I said it once and I will say it again. Fixing one problem isn't mutually exclusive to fixing any others.

I don't know why you think spending on defense should be static. If people who make these decisions had followed that philosophy, we'd still be fielding a horse cavalry and arming our soldiers with muskets. It costs money to modernize.

I don't know what the "5 times" thing meant so I guess I fail to see your point too.

The health of Americans isn't wrapped up in whether or not we spend a few $billion on brain research. We'll still have a top notch health care system if was spend zero federal dollars on that research. That's why it's not essential.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't know why you think spending on defense should be static. If people who make these decisions had followed that philosophy, we'd still be fielding a horse cavalry and arming our soldiers with muskets. It costs money to modernize.

I don't know what the "5 times" thing meant so I guess I fail to see your point too.

The health of Americans isn't wrapped up in whether or not we spend a few $billion on brain research. We'll still have a top notch health care system if was spend zero federal dollars on that research. That's why it's not essential.

An argument could be made that it should be adjusted if it weren't so consistently high. We average approximately $600 billion a year. China topped $100 billion for the first time ever. That's what the 5 times means (I cleaned the numbers up to keep them simple for you but it's between 5-6 times more than the next guy.) I think there's still plenty in there to upgrade from muskets(Did you really just go there? )

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

China topped $100 billion for the first time ever.

Its fairly well known that China's actual military budget FAR exceeds their published budget, by perhaps 3 times...I'm not sure of the exact amount (no one is), but there are plenty of studies & reports on this matter....in any case we certainly do NOT spend 5 times more than China. MAYBE 2 to 2.5.

And furthermore, their budget is rapidly increasing both as a whole and as a % of their gdp.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Its fairly well known that China's actual military budget FAR exceeds their published budget, by perhaps 3 times...I'm not sure of the exact amount (no one is), but there are plenty of studies & reports on this matter....in any case we certainly do NOT spend 5 times more than China. MAYBE 2 to 2.5.

And furthermore, their budget is rapidly increasing both as a whole and as a % of their gdp.

I can only go on what I read. If it is so widely well known, why didn't I read about that?

However, that is besides the point. My point is there is room for research and it will benefit us all in the end.

Spending money building up military isn't the best way to spend on defense anyway. Paying off the oversees investors is.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

An argument could be made that it should be adjusted if it weren't so consistently high. We average approximately $600 billion a year. China topped $100 billion for the first time ever. That's what the 5 times means (I cleaned the numbers up to keep them simple for you but it's between 5-6 times more than the next guy.) I think there's still plenty in there to upgrade from muskets(Did you really just go there? )

China's military mission isn't nearly as broad as ours is at the moment (although they have aspirations). As pawn pointed out, China's military budget is widely believed to be significantly larger than that which they admit. But whatever the numbers, it would be foolish to size our military budget on the size of the spending of another nation. We need to base our military budget on the requirements for the jobs we give it. To deter war and make sure our troops are in the best position possible should war be necessary, we need to not only exceed the capabilities of our adversaries, but exceed their capabilities by a substantial amount. Particularly since we field a relatively small force in terms of manpower.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Spending money building up military isn't the best way to spend on defense anyway. Paying off the oversees investors is.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I can only go on what I read. If it is so widely well known, why didn't I read about that?

I'm not sure, it is in literally every article , including wiki, that I have seen.....

What major, in depth source did you read about the Chinese military budget that failed to mention the fact that their budget is not transparent, and widely believed to be vastly under reported?

Not sure why you're asking me why YOU failed to see a basic fact.....do you really want me to answer? Because I will.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I'm not sure, it is in literally every article , including wiki, that I have seen.....

What major, in depth source did you read about the Chinese military budget that failed to mention the fact that their budget is not transparent, and widely believed to be vastly under reported?

Not sure why you're asking me why YOU failed to see a basic fact.....do you really want me to answer? Because I will.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...rcraft-carrier

Please, oh great one, here is the article from the Washington Post that I referenced. Please point out where it states what you state.

Maybe, just maybe, your assertion is not in every article as you claim. How's that for a ****ing answer?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

China's military mission isn't nearly as broad as ours is at the moment (although they have aspirations). As pawn pointed out, China's military budget is widely believed to be significantly larger than that which they admit. But whatever the numbers, it would be foolish to size our military budget on the size of the spending of another nation. We need to base our military budget on the requirements for the jobs we give it. To deter war and make sure our troops are in the best position possible should war be necessary, we need to not only exceed the capabilities of our adversaries, but exceed their capabilities by a substantial amount. Particularly since we field a relatively small force in terms of manpower.

We are comparing dollars to dollars here patty, because spending cuts is what you don't want. Now you're getting into capability matching etc which is entirely subjective.