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)

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Well, now that you put it that way, by comparison the Obama presidency is still a complete failure.

Still cleaning up Bush's mess.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Rest easy, sir. Direckshun and his people plan to spend the money wisely on such pressing problems as violence against women (which has been declining on it's own) and brain research. He hasn't tipped his hand, but I'm pretty sure the problems of someone getting picked last for the kickball game at recess and gender discriminatory bathrooms in federal buildings are up next.

Yes, because research on the human brain (which could provide significant advances to those with a brain based disease such as epilepsy, parkinsons, etc and affects millions of Americans) is comparable to research on who is getting picked last in kickball or violence against women.

I used to think that you were intelligent.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I can claim a surplus too if I avoid paying all my bills. So we've paid off that 16.5 trillion in debt now?

"Debt" does not = "due"

And Ds wanted to pay the bills. The Rs wanted to hold the economy hostage over paying the bills by threatening not to pay them. That's the enitre debt ceiling issue.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Yes, because research on the human brain (which could provide significant advances to those with a brain based disease such as epilepsy, parkinsons, etc and affects millions of Americans) is comparable to research on who is getting picked last in kickball or violence against women.

I used to think that you were intelligent.

I'd definitely support brain research ahead of a lot of liberal spending programs that already exist, but it's not a pressing problem and can't be justified as additional spending on top of all the nation-weakening social programs we already fund. Package it with the right kinds of (real) spending cuts and I'll support it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"Debt" does not = "due"

And Ds wanted to pay the bills. The Rs wanted to hold the economy hostage over paying the bills by threatening not to pay them. That's the enitre debt ceiling issue.

Not true. Rs don't want borrowing to be increased to the never-before-experienced levels that democrats prefer. Rs are just as committed to paying our bills as democrats.

[BigChiefTablet]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"Debt" does not = "due"

And Ds wanted to pay the bills. The Rs wanted to hold the economy hostage over paying the bills by threatening not to pay them. That's the enitre debt ceiling issue.

I ****ing hate republicans....slightly less than I hate democrats. You can push the numbers around as much as you want and call it a rose, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.

Surplus my ass.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I ****ing hate republicans....slightly less than I hate democrats. You can push the numbers around as much as you want and call it a rose, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.

Surplus my ass.

All we need to do is repeat this every single month for the next 140-150 years or so and the debt will be back down to where we were about 4 years ago.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I ****ing hate republicans....slightly less than I hate democrats. You can push the numbers around as much as you want and call it a rose, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.

Surplus my ass.

that's a good summation of it all

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I'm still trying to figure out how you can claim a surplus when you don't even have a ****ing budget

Receipts - Expenditures > 0

Was that really that hard?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Not true. Rs don't want borrowing to be increased to the never-before-experienced levels that democrats prefer.

You're talking about future spending, which is a seperate issue from bills already accrued and due.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Rs are just as committed to paying our bills as democrats.

They were. Raised the ceiling without a fuss many times. Then Obama was elected. And the bills they largely ran up over the prior decade, they suddenly didn't want to pay.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I ****ing hate republicans....slightly less than I hate democrats. You can push the numbers around as much as you want and call it a rose, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.

Surplus my ass.

Talk to the accountants who came up with the definitions. If revenues are greater than spending for the month = surplus

It's just a surplus for that month. Doesn't mean everything is roses and unicorns.

[BigChiefTablet]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Talk to the accountants who came up with the definitions. If revenues are greater than spending for the month = surplus

It's just a surplus for that month. Doesn't mean everything is roses and unicorns.

You don't need to respond to me as though I don't understand the English language. I am familiar with the way Washington and bankers "define" words to suit their ****ing interests.

If a business dumps money into a fire pit for 11 months out of the year, but operates in the black for one month: Surplus!

[Prison Bitch]

Has Kozmo been outed as Paul Begala yet?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You're talking about future spending, which is a seperate issue from bills already accrued and due.




They were. Raised the ceiling without a fuss many times. Then Obama was elected. And the bills they largely ran up over the prior decade, they suddenly didn't want to pay.

Why do you blame this on Republicans? All they threatened to do was refuse to allow the federal government to borrow more. They never threatened to prevent it from paying it's bills. That's what the Obama administration was telling you, not the Republicans.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'd definitely support brain research ahead of a lot of liberal spending programs that already exist, but it's not a pressing problem and can't be justified as additional spending on top of all the nation-weakening social programs we already fund. Package it with the right kinds of (real) spending cuts and I'll support it.

13-16 million people are affected by it annually and it's not a pressing problem?

Look around it's a forest. Quit looking at the tree.


http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/j...jsp?nodeid=438