Federal Deficit Shrinking In 2007

So Far, Government Debt Is $157.3B, Nearly $80B Improvement From Last Year, Treasury Department Reports

(CBS/AP)  The federal deficit so far this budget year is running sharply lower, driven by record revenues pouring into government coffers.

The Treasury Department reported on Friday that the government produced a deficit of $157.3 billion for the budget year that began last Oct. 1. That's a substantial improvement from the red ink figure of $239.6 billion produced for the corresponding 10-month period last year.

The lower year-to-date deficit was the result of a record of $2.12 in revenues. Spending, however, was higher — $2.27 trillion, which also marked an all-time high.

The White House predicts that the deficit this year drop to $205 billion.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the government will produce even less red ink this year. It recently said the deficit will be "toward the lower end" of a $150 billion to $200 billion range.

Democrats and the Bush administration have been at odds over the fiscal situation of the United States. Democrats believe the shrinking deficits won't last. President George W. Bush, meanwhile, has called on the Democratic-controlled Congress to show some restraint in its spending.

In a 60 Minutes, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, David Walker, warned that entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security are making the U.S.'s current standard of living is unsustainable.

"The fact is, is that we don't face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, 'What's the problem?' The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country," Walker said.

"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," Walker warned.

[realpatriot1]

jawausa,

You are extremely confused and your contention that the debt increased 500% under Clinton is not true.

Clinton inherited the largest debt in our history, which was a result of government spending during the Reagan-Bush years excedding government revenue.

There is no correlation between the money supply created by the Federal reserve and pumped into the general economy through the banking system and public debt resulting from fiscal policy. That's why fiscal and n monetary policy are generally discussed as 2 separate topics , because they're 2 separate topics.

What Clinton did do, besides balancing the revenue and spending in the budget resulting in a surplus, is he rescheduled our debt service to reduce interest cots which factored into bringing the budget into balance.

[jawausa]

New Orleans 12 August, 2007

No modern economy can grow without increased money supply. Money can only be created through debt, public and private.
No debt, no money.
During Clinton the Federal Debt increased by over 500%
So, before continuing with all dogmatic conspiracy nonsense commentaries go to the Federal Reserve or Internet and learn to understand how and why money is created in the world.

[rhs648]

The US is spending $205 billion more than it is bringing in. I wish I could live on a budget like that. With all of their promises for more money for everyone, it will get worse and worse. More money for schools, medical, credit bailout, crumbling infrastructure, hurricane rebuilding, war on terror, border enforcement/fence, subsidies for farms and companies, arts, PBS, aid for foreign countries, and etc. We need to cut somewhere, but nobody will give up their money, and demands more. This along with sending money making jobs overseas.

Posted by my2centss

So true! Not to mention corruption and graft which takes its fair share. Is it any wonder we can't take better care of our bridges or roads? Too much money going in too many directions. Where does the additional money come from for government sponsored health care for children or drug clinics? And why not provide nursing home coverage for the elderly. Like a bridge, if we put too much weight on it, it is likely to collapse.

[xzavierbrown]

Posted by vincan at 07:01 PM : Aug 11, 2007
+ report abuse

****
YEAH E*FFING RIGHT..TILL THEY TAX YOUR ARSE..JUST ASK LIBERAL CALIFORNIA ALL ABOUT TAXES..THEY LOVE THE IDEA THEY JUST DONT WANT TO BE PART OF IT..JUST ASK THE LAST GOVERNOR

[vincan-2009]

Billions in debt and a few billion less is not impressive at all. Bush republicans have become the biggest spenders ever in the whitehouse. Taxes are the dirty word against Democrats, but the truth is taxes are how our government survives. Bush and his tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts during war are a travesty for America.

[vincan-2009]

Billions in debt and a few billion less is not impressive at all. Bush republicans have become the biggest spenders ever in the whitehouse. Taxes are the dirty word against Democrats, but the truth is taxes are how our government survives. Bush and his tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts during war are a travesty for America.

[vincan-2009]

Billions in debt and a few billion less is not impressive at all. Bush republicans have become the biggest spenders ever in the whitehouse. Taxes are the dirty word against Democrats, but the truth is taxes are how our government survives. Bush and his tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts during war are a travesty for America.

[starleo146]

Raise corporate taxes and watch unemployment go up. Corporations employ people who pay taxes. If we want to watch tax revenues decrease or pay higher taxes, raise corporate taxes and increase unemployment. This is how it works.

Posted by rhs648 at 03:39 PM : Aug 11, 2007

Well I am not as versed as you on the corporate end of the economy, but this country got along real well when the poor and the middle class was running it. I always heard that is what ran this country till Reagonomics and Bushonomics came to the front and if I may remind you we haven't raised corporate taxes and this da*M*N economy is in the D*am*n*est mess I ever seen,

[rhs648]

The revenues were what the middle class had to pay in taxes to make up for the cut in corporate tax no wonder I'm so broke.

Posted by starleo146

Raise corporate taxes and watch unemployment go up. Corporations employ people who pay taxes. If we want to watch tax revenues decrease or pay higher taxes, raise corporate taxes and increase unemployment. This is how it works.

[starleo146]

The revenues were what the middle class had to pay in taxes to make up for the cut in corporate tax no wonder I'm so broke.

[my2centss]

The US is spending $205 billion more than it is bringing in. I wish I could live on a budget like that. With all of their promises for more money for everyone, it will get worse and worse. More money for schools, medical, credit bailout, crumbling infrastructure, hurricane rebuilding, war on terror, border enforcement/fence, subsidies for farms and companies, arts, PBS, aid for foreign countries, and etc. We need to cut somewhere, but nobody will give up their money, and demands more. This along with sending money making jobs overseas.

[homespunlady]

Bet "Red Dawn" is a popular movie in Iraq too.
Change the nationalities and the storyline of protecting sovereignty is the same.

In the meantime, the AMERICAN economy is the real target here and Iraq provides the perfect smoke and mirrors diversion.

WHY have most of the TOP acquired FOREIGN "vacation homes".
Where are the WAR PROFITEERING corporations moving to?
Dubai and U.A.E. have been building "wonder of the world" enclaves for the ULTRA-WEALTHY.
Bin Laden is the SON of a SAUDI BILLIONAIRE and is still free.

MEGA-WEALTH and MEGA-POWER have their PRIVILEGES.

Welcome to the start of the NEW DARK AGES fellow peasants.

[homespunlady]

No matter what the subject it seems to always gravitate back to Iraq. The economy is teetering on the Brink folks.
SPIN is NOT going to keep it covered up much longer but everyone just keeps puttering along and as long as they scrape by it's MUCH more exciting to talk WAR and IMPEACHMENT and DO NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.

One or 2 of the remaining Bush supporters argue semantics and draw attention AWAY from the TRUTH.

Why don't they just argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's just as helpful.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Anyone who thinks the surge is "working" has not been paying attention to the political situation there. In case you missed it on Faux Noise, all the Sunni MPs have abandoned ship.

Meanwhile the administration claims Iran is arming the insurgency while unable to account for over 100,000 AK47s, 380 tons of explosives, $8,000,000,000 in cash.

Do people pay conservatives to be STUPID?

[j0hnwi11iams]

Republicans let a little success go to their head, VERY LITTLE SUCCESS. If you think Democrats have been politicizing the war, you have not been paying attention to the vortex like spin coming out of the White House. The Bush Administration politicizes EVERYTHING. This president has been an unmitigated disaster, and we have not yet felt the full effects. His legacy is a time bomb on the economy.

[keithle1]

How can this be? No way. With all the money we're going through in Iraq/Afghanistan? It's definitely nice to read some good news for a change but this boggles my tiny mind.

USA! USA! USA!

[rhs648]

The Democrats have been playing politics with the war in Iraq. This brought them some success. However, if they win the presidency in 2008, they still have to deal with terrorism, instability in the middle east, and the war in Iraq. Don't expect much change.

[history_101]

I'm not interested. Thanks anyway and goodbye.
Posted by RandalDS at 10:18 PM : Aug 10, 2007

Yippee, I win!!!

[history_101]

You also haven't addressed the one way I know they can end the war, and that is to simply not fund it. I know this will work because the oundits and even staunch anti-war congressman say it can be done. If you don't authorize the money the war will end and you can't veto something that doesn't exist.

[randalds]

So what you're saying is that all this talk is completely pointless since the House leadership is already concerned about losing blue dog democrats because the surge is working and the politics are shifting towards Bush's side. Which means the Democrats will support the war in '08, which is what I have been saying all along.

Posted by history_101 at 10:12 PM : Aug 10, 2007

Now that's the single most twisted piece of logic I've ever seen here on this board. It's not even close in any way, shape or form what I was saying and what I said could not possibly even been interpreted in any manner to be that. It does, however, make it obvious that you're not interested in a real discussion of the facts and only want to try to play some very bizarre word games. I'm not interested. Thanks anyway and goodbye.