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)

[2bikemike]

I don't believ Clinton ever had a surplus. It was all smoke and mirrors as well.
All politicians cheat lie and mislead. Here is a long article on the myth of the Clinton surplus and accounting trickery they all use.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...yth/page/full/

[theelusiveeightrop]

If true, no matter the reason, it is good news.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

I don't believ Clinton ever had a surplus. It was all smoke and mirrors as well.
All politicians cheat lie and mislead. Here is a long article on the myth of the Clinton surplus and accounting trickery they all use.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...yth/page/full/

Story is just incorrect. Not even debatable. Here's one of the comments after the article. Pasting it saves me the time of saying the same thing:

"I regret to say that this article is complete nonsense. Despite Mr. Steiner's frantic assertions to the contrary, internal government debt is merely a bookeeping device irrelevant to the net deficit or surplus position of the federal government. All that matters for the deficit or surplus is movement in publicly held debt, which is determined by whether receipts are smaller or larger than outlays. There was a surplus in the 4 years 1998-2001. See Table B-78, Economic Report of the President, 2002. Space constraints prevent further elaboration. Note to the crazies: I am a Republican and a conservative. However, I also am a professional economist. In the latter capacity, I must be honest and report the facts. Mr. Steiner is flatly wrong. "

[Prison Bitch]

Even if it wasn't a technical surplus it was damn close. Those were great days for our country.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

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

No, it's not a pressing problem. 300 million people are impacted by the bankruptcy of Hostess and the resulting shortage of Ding Dongs, but that's not a pressing problem either.

The country is being driven to bankruptcy by out of control entitlements. The cost of these entitlements is squeezing both our national security budget and our discretionary spending budget (where brain research funding would be found). That's a pressing problem.

[DementedLogic]

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.

Do you realize that the congress doesn't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay on the debt? You don't pay your credit card bill with another credit card. The debt ceiling is an issue of accruing more debt, not paying debt already owed.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, it's not a pressing problem. 300 million people are impacted by the bankruptcy of Hostess and the resulting shortage of Ding Dongs, but that's not a pressing problem either.

The country is being driven to bankruptcy by out of control entitlements. The cost of these entitlements is squeezing both our national security budget and our discretionary spending budget (where brain research funding would be found). That's a pressing problem.

Now you're comparing health problems to a cupcake shortage. That's awesome. Do you spend a large amount of time thinking of bullshit that justifies the ends to your means or does it come to you spontaneously?

This is why it's so difficult to argue a point with you. You have the irrationality of a 2 year old child. You honestly believe that if you say it is so enough times it will become that way.

Pressing problems, as you put it, are not mutually exclusive. The military budget is too ****ing high and discretionary spending needs to allow for it.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Do you realize that the congress doesn't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay on the debt? You don't pay your credit card bill with another credit card. The debt ceiling is an issue of accruing more debt, not paying debt already owed.

Wrong. Why do you think the US credit rating got dinged? Because for the first time ever, there became a question about whether or not the US would pay its bills.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Wrong. Why do you think the US credit rating got dinged? Because for the first time ever, there became a question about whether or not the US would pay its bills.

Republicans have proposed bills that prioritize spending to pay the debt first. Democrats want nothing of it. So who doesn't want to pay the debt? The debt ceiling not being raised does not mean we will default on debt. It just means that spending ill have to be prioritized.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Wrong. Why do you think the US credit rating got dinged? Because for the first time ever, there became a question about whether or not the US would pay its bills.

I think that it might have something to do with our federal government being about as fiscally responsible as a crack whore.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Wrong. Why do you think the US credit rating got dinged? Because for the first time ever, there became a question about whether or not the US would pay its bills.

Look who's in the WH. I'd question it too.

He's right though. The debt ceiling is about increasing debt, not paying it off. It's up to the WH, with some constraints built into the law by Congress, to pay debt before they do things like pay their own salaries. Furthermore, they can pay back external debt before they pay the SS "trust fund". Of course, these things would be politically hard to do, but that's a different story.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Now you're comparing health problems to a cupcake shortage. That's awesome. Do you spend a large amount of time thinking of bullshit that justifies the ends to your means or does it come to you spontaneously?

This is why it's so difficult to argue a point with you. You have the irrationality of a 2 year old child. You honestly believe that if you say it is so enough times it will become that way.

Pressing problems, as you put it, are not mutually exclusive. The military budget is too ****ing high and discretionary spending needs to allow for it.

Pressing problems are not all created equally. Problems need to be prioritized in an era of limited resources. It goes

(1) defense,
(2) deficit reduction,





(3) researching the brain barely edging out (4) solving the great Ding Dong crisis.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Republicans have proposed bills that prioritize spending to pay the debt first. Democrats want nothing of it. So who doesn't want to pay the debt? The debt ceiling not being raised does not mean we will default on debt. It just means that spending ill have to be prioritized.

[Hoover]

deficit is one thing, national debt is another.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Pressing problems are not all created equally. Problems need to be prioritized in an era of limited resources. It goes

(1) defense,
(2) deficit reduction,





(3) researching the brain barely edging out (4) solving the great Ding Dong crisis.

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.