US deficit shrinks nearly nine percent in fiscal 2010

reply to post by mnemeth1


What else is not figured in is inflation and budget tricks such as the following:

Say last year the budget was $1000. Next budget will get an automatic increase of say 10%, because agencies used all their monies and then some. So the Imperialist Government says these agencies need more money allocated towards them. They then, figure into the budget a 10% increase in all Government budgets.

Effectively making the proposed budget at $1100 (10% increase). They then say they are going to cut the budget 8%...so in reality they really only cut 8% out of the proposed future spending. Anyone in the military or government could vouch on this very way that the government operates.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by Misoir

 

Great..only another 91% to go...

then the 14 trillion accrued debt.....yay....er......hmm...er....doh!

Whats the interest on 14 trillion again?....Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrggghhh!!!

Mainstream media propaganda to cover government financial fraud.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What else is not figured in is inflation and budget tricks such as the following:

Say last year the budget was $1000. Next budget will get an automatic increase of say 10%, because agencies used all their monies and then some. So the Imperialist Government says these agencies need more money allocated towards them. They then, figure into the budget a 10% increase in all Government budgets.

Effectively making the proposed budget at $1100 (10% increase). They then say they are going to cut the budget 8%...so in reality they really only cut 2% out of the proposed future spending. Anyone in the military or government could vouch on this very way that the government operates.

edit on 17-10-2010 by ownbestenemy because: numbers and booze dont mix

Can you demonstrate the math on that for us using the figures in the OP???

I think we would all like to see

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Right-wingers will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to shovel manure onto the Obama administration, even if it's illogical in nature.

A drop in the deficit? They'll find a way to turn it into a negative.

Gawd Bless Amoronica, indeed!

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Right-wingers will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to shovel manure onto the Obama administration, even if it's illogical in nature.

A drop in the deficit? They'll find a way to turn it into a negative.

Gawd Bless Amoronica, indeed!

It horrible news right...

they might as well have thrown poop in the popes mouth while he was delivering a speech!

reply to post by Janky Red


Okay. Take the overall budget of ~$1.3 trillion dollars. The government, and its agencies, have spent 100% of their monies allocated last fiscal year (which ended I believe September 30th.)

The only reason they spent all the monies allocated was because they engaged in 'end of year spending', which doesn't include all the necessities to administer the government, but rather buy all the goodies. TVs, coffee makers, BBQ pits, etc, etc. (Note, sometimes there is a legitimate claim to buying something such as a new tool box, but they are rare and far between in the Public sector.)

Now, since the Government spent up to the budgeted amount, those agencies within will demand an increase in their following budget, to ensure an increase, not a decrease in their budgets set forth.

Those agencies now propose their next fiscal year budget at 10% higher than the previous year (totally made up number, as if I had actual numbers I would post the facts. This is merely upon my knowledge and what I have seen and heard.)

The overall budget gets a new number, that being a certain percentage higher, say 10% than the previous year. To placate the populace and continue the lovely Siren song, they come out and say they have cut the new budget by claiming they cut 8-9% from the budget. So in reality, they still received an increase within the budget, but are able to claim fiscal responsibility with the 'cuts'.

In the mean time, I will research budgets and find exact numbers to satisfy your question.

reply to post by Janky Red


I wouldn't complain if someone threw poop in the Pope's mouth.

But I'm saying, don't waste your time turning positives into negatives. Some people love to engage in this behavior and my question is, has it ever been productive?

reply to post by The Sword


I can care less who is President. This story is nothing positive. They are still running a budget deficit. Meaning they still are needing to borrow upwards of $.40 on the dollar to fund this budget.

Check out the BDI,been comin for awhile........

.....................

reply to post by The Sword


This has nothing to do with the administration one way or the other. This has everything to do with how money in government is spent. That's why the same projections see a rise in spending in 2011. It's not a rise or a decline, if anything it is a shift in government resources together with spending freezes due to vacations being planned, schedule changes, layoffs in seasonal private contracts.

The more I know about government the less I understand the partisanship.

Government has problems man. Obama isn't helping, the GOP isn't helping, and it won't be long before we really begin to feel the effects of 2000 and 3000 page "reforms" that were shoved down our throats through two administrations "across party lines"(in quotes because both parties are the same to me). The deck is actually being stacked against us, not in our favor.

But you go ahead and keep preachin' about them right-wingers.

reply to post by The Sword


Yep, paint me with that because I am doing my duty as someone who actually believes in self-government. You can use that broad brush all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that their really is no positive news in what the OP posted, regardless of who is the sitting president.

If you still can't wrap your head around how this is not positive, try telling your bank that you are going to spend $100 more than what you actually have in the bank. Then, as an act of benevolence and forsight, tell them that you are going to cut that by 8% and only spend $92 more than what you actually have available to spend. See how its still negative no matter what?

reply to post by projectvxn


Hey, all I'm saying is that a drop in the deficit doesn't have to be spun as a negative thing.

We have to keep our chins up during these times. I'm thankful to have a job when others do not.

reply to post by The Sword
I don't wanna spin anything.......

Makes no difference either way.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Hey, all I'm saying is that a drop in the deficit doesn't have to be spun as a negative thing.

We have to keep our chins up during these times. I'm thankful to have a job when others do not.

And that is the immature viewpoint that has us in this situation.

What you are saying is on the same level as only smacking the hand of a 6 year old for aiming a loaded gun at himself and then handing it back to him. America has been been around for only a few centuries.. Other countries understand longer range thinking and unless America puts the financial gun(deficit) down.. the other countries are just gonna watch as America shoots herself.

oh, keeping your chin up doesn't do anything but expose your groin that's about to be financially kicked.
Sure be thankful you have a job but right now that means you feel safe enough to keep closing your eyes to what this deficit means for YOU long term.

Ron Paul said a few years ago that auditing the Fed and/or getting rid of the Fed would be a horrendous blow to America but the effects would be only a few years. People HATED to hear this and is part of his demise, but he also said that if we WAIT then the pain coming will be much longer than a few years.

Personally, I like taking my lumps now over taking more lumps later.

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by SeesFar

 

your forgetting one fact. yes the congress is responsible for the final budget but the sitting president has to sign the budget into law or veto it. and since neither Bush or Obama has vetoed a budget then they both are responsible for the budgets passed by congress under their time in office.

Now it would be a completely different story if they would have vetoed the budgets and the democrat controlled congress overrode the veto then you could lay all the blame on congress.

But that wasn't the case so lets lay the blame where it belongs. between both presidents and the congresses at the time equally!

The CBO always uses funny math to tweak the numbers anyway, they always always try and make their bosses look better than they are or else they would be out of a job!

edit on 10/17/2010 by Mercenary2007 because: (no reason given)

No, i didn't forget anything, but i appreciate your input. =) I was attempting (poorly, apparently) to make a point without derailing the thread.

I'm not saying one Party is better than another; i agree with you fully that the blame is upon all of them (Congress and the Presidents). Agree with you fully about the CBO, as well.

Sadly, the blame is also upon all of us ~ both upon those who will continue to vote for the candidate who will reward them most from the public treasury AND upon those who took too little notice too late.

reply to post by SeesFar


i really hopped you hadn't forgot and was trying to make some kind of point. yes both parties are cheats liars etc we all know that. and your right we american's share the blame as well. the sad part is nothing will ever change. the older generations passed the buck to us younger generations and we'll keep doing the same sadly.

reply to post by Misoir


Gotta love it when a $1,294,000,000,000 budget deficit is good news!

We are doomed! Time for another trillion dollar 'stimulus' package, isn't it?

The federal budget deficit hit a new record in the just-completed 2008 budget year under the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The record $438 billion shortfall for the budget year that ended last week is up from $162 billion posted last year. The previous record of $413 billion was posted in 2004.

USA Today

“GAO’s analysis of Iraqi data indicated that Iraq’s revenues exceeded expenditures through the end of 2009, resulting in an estimated cumulative budget surplus of $52.1 billion,” said GAO.

During that same six-year period, meanwhile, the U.S. government ran deficits every year, and, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, from Jan. 1, 2004 to Dec. 31. 2009, the overall U.S. national debt grew from $6.99 trillion to $12.31 trillion.

CNSNEWS


yeah...Bush and the Republicans, the best Government EVER!!! Obama sucks!

This article seems pertinent to the discussion, such as it is:

"National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch" (i apologize; i don't know how to do the nifty thing where the title is the link)

www.cbsnews.com...

The last line of the article being: "The federal budget was last in balance from 1998 to 2001."

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by theability

 

Actually the budget for 2009 was done by president Bush because a budget is constructed the year prior. So the '09 budget was made in '08 and guess who was president.

But like another poster stated it is still 91% to go so it's not like we are going to jump for joy. We are virtually screwed and things are about to completely collapse, there's no saving this they only prolonged the inevitable.

Ummmm, "President" Obama was "Senator" Obama and along with a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress SET the BUDGET. "Presidents" don't "set" the budget, Congress does.

Geez, public school much?