2012 budget deficit checks in @ 7% of GDP, down from 8.7% in 2011 (- 200 Bio. $)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:10:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  2012 budget deficit checks in @ 7% of GDP, down from 8.7% in 2011 (- 200 Bio. $)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2012 budget deficit checks in @ 7% of GDP, down from 8.7% in 2011 (- 200 Bio. $)  (Read 1337 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 12, 2012, 02:32:08 PM »

The federal budget deficit was about $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2012, CBO estimates, approximately $200 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2011. At 7.0 percent of gross domestic product, the 2012 deficit was down from 8.7 percent in 2011 and 9.0 percent in 2010 but greater than in any year between 1947 and 2008. The estimated 2012 total reflects the shift of some payments from fiscal year 2012 into fiscal year 2011 (that is, from October 2011 to September 2011, because October 1 fell on a weekend); without that timing shift, the deficit in 2012 would have been about $30 billion higher.

The Treasury recorded a surplus of $75 billion in September 2012, CBO estimates, in contrast with the $63 billion deficit incurred in the same month last year. Shifts in the timing of certain payments influenced the results in both years: Payments totaling $31 billion were shifted from October 2011 to September 2011, while payments totaling $58 billion were shifted from September 2012 to August 2012. Adjusted for those timing shifts, the surplus in September 2012 would have been $17 billion, in contrast with a deficit of $32 billion in September 2011.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2012_09_MBR.pdf
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2012, 02:37:11 PM »

Two sides to this - it is unfortunate that more was not spent, as it is very bad timing for austerity.  On the other hand, the revenue is up due to the improving economy.  Next year's inevitable cyclical boom will continue this trend doubly so.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2012, 05:27:13 PM »

What was it during the last Bush budget (FY 2009)? The deficit will likely fall below $1 trillion next year.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2012, 04:27:16 AM »

The U.S. is really in a nice position. It can run 10% deficits without serious consequences.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2012, 08:14:20 AM »

What was it during the last Bush budget (FY 2009)? The deficit will likely fall below $1 trillion next year.

When it was passed it was expected to be around 400 billion, but it wound up being 1 trillion plus.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2012, 02:07:00 PM »

What was it during the last Bush budget (FY 2009)? The deficit will likely fall below $1 trillion next year.

When it was passed it was expected to be around 400 billion, but it wound up being 1 trillion plus.

I meant as a share of GDP. It looks like it was around 10%. So Obama has managed to reduce the deficit as % of GDP from 10% to 7%.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2012, 02:08:31 PM »

What was it during the last Bush budget (FY 2009)? The deficit will likely fall below $1 trillion next year.

When it was passed it was expected to be around 400 billion, but it wound up being 1 trillion plus.

I meant as a share of GDP. It looks like it was around 10%. So Obama has managed to reduce the deficit as % of GDP from 10% to 7%.

Oh, I see.

Using Google's public data:

Bush II had one year with a 1% surplus, followed by 6 with deficits between 1-3%. In his last year he ran a deficit of 10% GDP.

Obama on the other hand has ran deficits of about 9%, 8.6%, and 8.5% so far. The CBO projects a deficit of around 5.5% GDP next year.

After digging into the data a bit I found that revenues are expected to rise by a whopping 17% or over $400 billion while expenditures will remain static. Such a large increase seems like it is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed, so I'd take the rosy outlook with a grain of salt.

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2012, 01:05:39 PM »

Bush II had one year with a 1% surplus, followed by 6 with deficits between 1-3%. In his last year he ran a deficit of 10% GDP.

Obama on the other hand has ran deficits of about 9%, 8.6%, and 8.5% so far.

The Bush deficits were artifically suppressed by the housing/credit bubble, during which private sector deficits were running at upwards of 15-20% per year. To make matters worse, there was no awareness of the issue (unlike today). Once that collapsed during Bush's final year, it was all dumped onto the public sector. Nonetheless, deficits have been reduced while growth has been maintained for every consecutive year under Obama, which is no easy feat- just ask the Europeans who are trying to reduce deficits and maintain growth but can't seem to manage both- or in some cases, either.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The article suggest 2012 is coming in at 7%, and that's a reasonable estimate against the claims that it will fall to 5.5%, which I highly doubt.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2012, 05:59:25 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 5.5% is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone. I'm with you on the 7% number. As for Bush v Obama, I tend to disapprove of both for the same reasons (too much spending, unjustified military actions, infringing on people's rights etc.)
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2012, 09:47:19 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 5.5% is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire for everyone. I'm with you on the 7% number. As for Bush v Obama, I tend to disapprove of both for the same reasons (too much spending, unjustified military actions, infringing on people's rights etc.)

Apart from the stimulus, Obama hasn't exactly been profligate when it comes to discretionary spending. Of course, none of these things distinguishes them from what Romney would do.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.