Gov't records $1.3 trillion budget deficit again

The dome of the U.S. Capitol is seen in Washington Jan. 4, 2011. / AFP/Getty Images

Updated at 2:34 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON - A government report released on Friday predicts that the federal budget hit a near-record $1.3 trillion in the just-completed fiscal year.

The figure matches last year's deficit tally but shows slight improvement over a record set two years ago.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis is in line with previous estimates but offers yet another reminder of the government's precarious fiscal position — just as a congressional supercommittee is working to produce at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings over the coming decade.

Poll: Most want taxes on millionaires increased
Deficits still go up big in Obama's deficit plan
Obama's deficit plan revs up Democrats

The 2009 record deficit of $1.4 trillion was registered as the country struggled through a recession and was in the midst of the Wall St. bailout. Continuing weakness in the economy has kept tax revenues low. The revenue picture did improve in 2011 as individual income tax receipts rose 22 percent to $1.1 trillion, CBO estimated.

The economy is being weighed down by higher oil prices, an economic slowdown in Europe, and continuing weakness in the housing sector. As a result, corporate income tax receipts dropped by 6 percent.

Interest payments on the $14.9 trillion national debt spiked by 17 percent, to $266 billion, despite historically low rates. But the cost of unemployment benefits dropped by 24 percent as fewer claims were filed. Lower war costs limited the increase in military spending to just over 1 percent, CBO said.

Most economists believe the most important measure of the deficit is to compare it against the size of the economy. The 2011 deficit equaled 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, a slight drop from the 8.9 percent of GDP registered last year. It'll take major changes to the way the government does business — some combination of new revenues and major spending cuts — to get the deficit down to about 3 percent of GDP, the level that many analysts say is sustainable.

The supercommittee is supposed to come up with at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years but economists and budget experts say it'll take a far larger deficit-cutting effort to ease the dangers that future deficits pose to the economy.

The Treasury Department will issue the government's official deficit tally later this month, but it's unlikely to differ much from the CBO tally.

[jackp32]

........................ as out of control gov't spending raises the national debt to $14.810 trillion. See: usdebtclock.org.

[lucifersshadow]

Keep fighting stupid wars, and expect this to change?

[involved_indi]

I like the National Debt road trip on You Tube that converts the national dept to a car's speedometer. We were traveling along at about 40MPH and then Bush sped it up to 64 in 8 years and now Obama has us going 174MPH in 32 months... Good analogy.

[RobAla]

While this bunch is protesting Wall Street greed, it completely ignores the real greedy jerk in the room - Washington politicians, including President Obama. They are so greedy to spend the public's money, that they don't bat an eye at spending the next generations money on goodies today. There is the real GREED - Washington politicians!

[hairynews]

In fact, the Pentagon keeps two sets of books. The first is the official casualty list posted on the DOD website. The second, hard-to-find, set of data is available only on a different website and can be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. This data shows that the total number of soldiers who have been wounded, injured, or suffered from disease is double the number wounded in combat. Some will argue that a percentage of these non-combat injuries might have happened even if the soldiers were not in Iraq. Our new research shows that the majority of these injuries and illnesses can be tied directly to service in the war.
From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

[hairynews]

US wars cost 4.4 trillion dollars
Washington, July 2: US wars launched since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have left 225,000 dead and cost up to $4.4 trillion which roughly works out to $20 million per dead human being, according to a new study by university researchers.
The study published by Brown University this week focused on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, which came in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
The authors argued that governments almost always go to war underestimating the potential duration and costs of a conflict while overestimating "the political objectives that can be accomplished by the use of brute force."
The study said "an extremely conservative estimate" of the casualty toll was about 225,000 people killed and 365,000 wounded in the wars so far.
The number of soldiers killed comes to 31,741, including about 6,000 Americans, 1,200 allied troops, 9,900 Iraqis, 8,800 Afghans, 3,500 Pakistanis as well as 2,300 US private security contractors, it said.
The civilian toll was much higher, with an estimated 172,000 dead, including about 125,000 Iraqis, 35,000 Pakistanis and 12,000 Afghans, it said.
The study acknowledged that estimating the number of dead was difficult, particularly the toll for insurgents, putting the number at between 20,000 to 51,000 insurgents killed.
The report found that 168 reporters and 266 humanitarian workers were among the dead since the United States launched its "war on terror" after 9/11.
The wars also have triggered a massive flow of refugees and displaced persons, with more than 7.8 million displaced, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it said.
http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jul/3/us-wars-cost-2-25-lakh-lives-4-4-trillion-dollars-study-54.asp

The study estimated the financial cost of the wars at a minimum of $3.7 trillion and up to $4.4 trillion, which represents about a quarter of the country's current debt.
The researchers arrived at a much larger figure than the Pentagon's previous estimates, as they included spending by the Department of Homeland Security to counter terrorist threats, government projections for spending on wounded veterans through 2051 and war-related funds from the State Department and the US Agency for International Development.
The US government has previously cited the price tag for the wars at about one trillion dollars.
"Our estimate is larger because we include more than the direct Pentagon appropriation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the larger global war on terror," said the study.
"Wars always cost more than what the Pentagon spends for the duration of the combat operation."
http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jul/3/us-wars-cost-2-25-lakh-lives-4-4-trillion-dollars-study-54.asp

[hairynews]

Put together, more than 2 million troops have been sent to Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, which began in 2003, including hundreds of thousands of troops who have served more than one tour. Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and about 1,700 in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands more have been wounded.

[retm-w]

gard

Did bush pay for those wars that he started?

[hairynews]

In fact, the Pentagon keeps two sets of books. The first is the official casualty list posted on the DOD website. The second, hard-to-find, set of data is available only on a different website and can be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. This data shows that the total number of soldiers who have been wounded, injured, or suffered from disease is double the number wounded in combat. Some will argue that a percentage of these non-combat injuries might have happened even if the soldiers were not in Iraq. Our new research shows that the majority of these injuries and illnesses can be tied directly to service in the war.
From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

[msimamaji]

The best way to balance the budget is to eliminate all the tax cuts for the rich that the Reagan era began. We need to eliminate all the tax breaks that help corporations off-shore jobs overseas. We need to eliminate all the tax loopholes that benefit the top 1 %. We need to charge an excise tax on all day trades, as well as hedge funds, and derivatives. (Would some one please tell me, in simple English, what a derivative is? Not even the Wall Street Banksters can answer that.)

We need to use the proceeds to provide jobs for the unemployed. In short, let's tax the greedy to fund jobs for the needy.

Considering the 2009 report by the Society of American Civil Engineers, considering the impact of global climate change on our infrastructure, there's plenty of work to be done. Obama's Jobs Act is just a down payment. So again, Tax the greedy provide jobs for the needy.

P.S. If you don't want to read the entire report, go to Huffington Post and find a photo essay by Harry Bradford. Bear in mind that Bradford's photos are only a small sampling of the problems. Seeing is believing.

[realtimecoffee]

The greedy are those that feel entitled to other people's income.
The greedy are those that keep producing children they know they can't afford to take care of.
The greedy are those that buy cheap imports and then demand "the rich" support their out of work neighbor because of outsourcing.
The greedy are those that demand welfare but refuse to pick lettuce or clean motel rooms.

[retm-w]

Dan1523

Wether taxes are raised or not greedy businessmen will still raise the prices for that widgit.

[hairynews]

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

[SuperSageUSA]

Yet another reason we find ourselves in the OBAMA DEPRESSION...