If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Federal deficit jumps 25% in August. Economists say it would have been much higher but Congress had the entire month off   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 40
    More: Fail, congresses, federal deficits, crop insurance, economists  
•       •       •

988 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2013 at 9:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-11 09:31:32 AM  
wellllll ... at least it is finally under one trillion, eh? eh?

farking start taxing non-profits already and get it over with. or at least reduce the amount of write-offs.
 
2013-09-11 09:31:51 AM  
Moonies say what?
 
2013-09-11 09:33:39 AM  
The federal deficit surged nearly 25 percent in August to reach $753 billion through the first 11 months of the fiscal year, but the Congressional Budget Office said Monday it expects the final year-end total to be lower.

In August alone, the government ran a $146 billion deficit, pushing this year's total up by nearly 25 percent in just one month. But CBO analysts said the picture will look somewhat better in September, the final month of the fiscal year, which will produce a surplus and drive the deficit lower.


So the Moonies' headline - and yours, trollmitter - are entirely disingenuous?

Spending, meanwhile, is down $127 billion, and if that trend continues through next month it will mark the second straight year the government spent less than the previous year. The last time that happened was 1954 and 1955.

A major drop in spending came on defense programs, which the CBO said was due both to the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and to the budget sequesters, which hit the military particularly hard.

The biggest drop, though, was to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which actually returned about $82 billion to the federal government, and didn't receive any payments from taxpayers.


So once again they're trying to push a narrative that's completely counter to reality?

House Republicans have scheduled votes this week on a stopgap measure that would continue 2013 funding levels, but they are fighting a rebellion within their own ranks over what to do about the president's health care law.

A number of Republicans have called on the House to include language defunding the law altogether, forcing Mr. Obama to choose between scrapping his signature achievement or risking a government shutdown.


Aaaand there's that poor chicken again.
 
2013-09-11 09:34:51 AM  
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
The Washington Times
No
 
2013-09-11 09:36:34 AM  
"This is expected to be the first year under President Obama that the federal deficit is below $1 trillion."

Well there's that.
 
2013-09-11 09:36:59 AM  
I can't believe the moonie times would have a misleading headline?
 
2013-09-11 09:40:49 AM  
Is there a non-derp source for this?

/M-O-O-N.  That spells NGTRTFA.
 
2013-09-11 09:43:50 AM  
In before debt ceiling?
 
2013-09-11 09:44:23 AM  
The Moonies, the religion that gives The Simpsons the idea for one of their best episodes.

"But Marge, we haven't been mass married!"

images3.wikia.nocookie.net

/Runner up joke from recent: "Welcome to the Mormon Church, America's most respectable cult!"
 
2013-09-11 09:44:44 AM  
Its called "August", federal deficit (not debt) jumps by about 25% in August every damn year. http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf
In 05 and 06 is jumped by about 1/4th of the budget, in 07 it jumped by 50%, 28% in 2008.
In 2009-2011 it jumped by smaller percents because the deficit was already so damn high, we had no net positive income for any months making august seem tame in comparison.
 
2013-09-11 09:47:48 AM  
Employment situation improving
Government spending down two years in a row
tax receipts up
Deficits going down

Clearly this is bad news... for Obama.
 
2013-09-11 09:53:45 AM  
I have bowel movements more profound than the TWT

i967.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-11 10:13:02 AM  
So it's not even year-over-year, which is usually the best comparison for a lot of this data?

Fark it.

Deficit under $1 trillion, nominal GDP of ~16 trillion. That's a deficit/GDP ratio of 5.5%. That's not ideal but it's hardly the crisis the Teaists about us might believe.
 
2013-09-11 10:19:23 AM  

stpickrell: So it's not even year-over-year, which is usually the best comparison for a lot of this data?


http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf
Article said $146B for Aug 2013 so that would make it about 24% less than the $190B for last year, though still slightly above a typical August. September numbers are often positive when we have a big August, it depends upon how the spending was actually done. If you want historial trends you'd be best averaging 3 month periods.
 
2013-09-11 10:36:23 AM  
Of course August probably looks crappy.  September is the end of the US fiscal year, and the end of the third quarter for the CY.  Lots of people/businesses pay taxes quarterly and won't pay them in August since they're not due yet.
 
2013-09-11 11:23:54 AM  
Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.
 
2013-09-11 11:26:29 AM  

super_grass: Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.


We could, but it's more important that we let the retards get ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, HAKUNA, NO clicks and maybe allow their retardation to die the death of no ad revenue through education campaigns here on Fark and everywhere where reason is valued.  That is what the world really needs.  Why can't you be a hero too?
 
2013-09-11 12:59:09 PM  
Just as with the surplus months that were celebrated here on Fark, I will reiterate how meaningless the monthly numbers are.
 
2013-09-11 01:25:06 PM  

BMFPitt: Just as with the surplus months that were celebrated here on Fark, I will reiterate how meaningless the monthly numbers are.


Correct, however, we are trending down which is very good news.  The biggest issue is if we can sustain this trend.  If we stop at 5.5% for deficit/GDP, we are in some serious trouble.  If we can get that down to 2.5% to 3.5% AND KEEP IT THERE, then we should be in decent shape.
 
2013-09-11 02:10:31 PM  
Whenever one of the Moonies flush a toilet, Fark mods run to the other end of the pipe to green-light it.
 
2013-09-11 02:42:14 PM  

super_grass: Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.


Quick question: do you think the annual federal deficit has gone up or down under Obama?
 
2013-09-11 02:43:29 PM  

super_grass: Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times


Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

No?  Then we're done.
 
2013-09-11 03:11:13 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?


Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect.  Seems to be a pretty factual article.  I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.

/I don't mind discussing TPM or KOS articles.
 
2013-09-11 03:56:42 PM  

HeadLever: Dwight_Yeast: Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect.  Seems to be a pretty factual article.  I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.

/I don't mind discussing TPM or KOS articles.


Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest. This is a non-story dressed up to get ignorant folk riled up. Once that's been pointed out, there's nothing left to discuss.

/Well, tangents could be discussed--perhaps deficit and debt generally--but the article doesn't offer anything.
 
2013-09-11 04:07:02 PM  

ZoeNekros: Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest.


Misleading how?  Deficit increased in August by 25%.  Seems to be pretty straightforward to me.  You may not like it but it is a fact.

Omissions?  They seem to do a good job explaining the trends and past deficits.  Didn't see where they omitted anything.  What would you have them add that they didn't?
 
2013-09-11 04:16:02 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: wellllll ... at least it is finally under one trillion, eh? eh?

farking start taxing non-profits already and get it over with. or at least reduce the amount of write-offs.


Limit non-profits to charities. Make churches file, and only their charity functions are tax free.
 
2013-09-11 04:23:29 PM  

HeadLever: ZoeNekros: Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest.

Misleading how?  Deficit increased in August by 25%.  Seems to be pretty straightforward to me.  You may not like it but it is a fact.

Omissions?  They seem to do a good job explaining the trends and past deficits.  Didn't see where they omitted anything.  What would you have them add that they didn't?


See Mindstalker's first (fark filter evasion) post.

/Granted, this particular article really isn't that bad. It's just a non-story.
 
2013-09-11 04:27:37 PM  

ZoeNekros: /Granted, this particular article really isn't that bad. It's just a non-story.


That was my take too.  My point is even with this factual non-story, you still had the fark libs filling out their Butthurt Report Forms and wailing about the source material.
 
2013-09-11 04:31:13 PM  

HeadLever: ZoeNekros: Misleading titles and omissions can be just as dishonest.

Misleading how?  Deficit increased in August by 25%.  Seems to be pretty straightforward to me.  You may not like it but it is a fact.

Omissions?  They seem to do a good job explaining the trends and past deficits.  Didn't see where they omitted anything.  What would you have them add that they didn't?


Yes.  Totally misleading.  If they wanted to do a "good job" they would compare this august to LAST AUGUST or chart yearly fluctuations in the deficit over years.  Instead they just said "derp!" It's almost as if someone was reading every piece of boring shiat the CBO puts out, found an interesting number out of context and wrote an Obama Hit piece around it.
 
2013-09-11 04:37:51 PM  

plewis: If they wanted to do a "good job" they would compare this august to LAST AUGUST


They did in the story.  And comparing month over year is no more of a 'good job' as comparing month over month.  It is two different ways of measuring a trend.  One is no more correct than the other.

It's almost as if someone was reading every piece of boring shiat the CBO puts out, found an interesting number out of context and wrote an Obama Hit piece around it.

So describing the month over month change in deficits is now an Obama Hit piece?  Lol, really?

/Have your Butthurt Report form filled out yet?
 
2013-09-11 04:51:23 PM  

fatassbastard: super_grass: Let us all focus on the really important issue: our perceived credibility of the Washington Times, for as we all know, it is nearly impossible to verify the factuality of the article through other means.

Quick question: do you think the annual federal deficit has gone up or down under Obama?


For which year or in aggregate?
 
2013-09-11 04:53:10 PM  

ZoeNekros: Misleading titles and omissions


welcome to Fark
 
2013-09-11 04:53:42 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: wellllll ... at least it is finally under one trillion, eh? eh?

farking start taxing non-profits already and get it over with. or at least reduce the amount of write-offs.


How about we roll the tax rates back to the 2000 rates? Oh wait that would be a tax increase and there are two things the American people want low taxes and big government.
 
2013-09-11 06:44:39 PM  
Guess that sequester really worked
 
2013-09-11 06:48:52 PM  

AngryDragon: Guess that sequester really worked


The deficit was shrinking pretty goddamn rapidly BEFORE the sequester.
 
2013-09-11 08:46:22 PM  

MindStalker: If you want historial trends you'd be best averaging 3 month periods.


I prefer a 12-month moving average, you factor out seasonal and other cyclical effects without the distortion of a Seasonal Adjustment Factor.
 
2013-09-11 08:49:10 PM  

HeadLever: Dwight_Yeast: Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe the Washington Times has credibility?

Don't see anyting in that article that is incorrect.  Seems to be a pretty factual article.  I know that anything that has a conservative bent needs to be ridiculed by the fark libs, but this mentality just exemplifies how intellectually dishonest many of you are.

/I don't mind discussing TPM or KOS articles.


buttcoin.org
 
2013-09-12 01:47:26 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: For which year or in aggregate?


Year      Deficit (billions)
2009:    1412.69 (last budget presented by President Bush)
2010:    1294.37
2011:    1299.59
2012:    1086.97
2013:      972.91

Link
 
2013-09-12 09:48:48 AM  

fatassbastard: Slaves2Darkness: For which year or in aggregate?

Year      Deficit (billions)
2009:    1412.69 (last budget presented by President Bush)
2010:    1294.37
2011:    1299.59
2012:    1086.97
2013:      972.91

Link


So Obama has cut the deficit by nearly 50% since coming into office?

Is there anything this guy can't do?
 
2013-09-12 08:04:47 PM  

stpickrell: So Obama has cut the deficit by nearly 50% since coming into office?


But compare that with what the debt has done in the same time.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report