U.S. budget deficit down 37.6 percent through July

Government remains on track to post lowest annual budget gap in five years
Associated Press
Aug 12, 2013

The government on Monday reported a $97.6 billion deficit for July but remains on track to post its lowest annual budget gap in five years.

July's figure raises the deficit so far for the 2013 budget year to $607.4 billion, the government says. That's 37.6 percent below the $973.8 billion deficit for the first 10 months of the 2012 budget year.

The Congressional Budget Office has forecast that the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, far below last year's $1.09 trillion. It would mark the first year that the gap between spending and revenue has been below $1 trillion since 2008.

Steady economic growth, higher taxes, lower government spending and increased dividends from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped shrink the deficit.

Still, looming budget fights in Congress are complicating the picture. When lawmakers return from their recess in September, they will need to increase the government's borrowing limit. They will also have to approve a spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. Republicans and Democrats remain far apart on both measures.

Republicans want President Barack Obama to accept deeper cuts in domestic government programs and in expensive benefit programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Obama has argued that Republicans must be willing to accept higher taxes on the highest-earning Americans.

Conservative House Republicans have signaled a willingness to force a partial government shutdown as a way of defunding Obama's universal health care law, which they oppose.

A possible compromise would be to approve a stopgap budget to keep the government operating after Oct. 1 while both sides seek a permanent solution.

Obama has vowed not to negotiate with Congress over raising the borrowing limit as he did in 2011. But some Republicans want to test the president's resolve even if it rattles financial markets. Investors fear a doomsday scenario in which the country would default on its debt, which it has never done.

Through July, the government collected $2.29 trillion in revenue, up 13.9 percent from the same 10 months last year. Government spending during this period totaled $2.89 trillion, down 2.9 percent from a year ago. That decline reflects, in part, automatic government spending cuts that began taking effect March 1.

Collectively, the government's deficits increase the national debt, now at $16.7 trillion.




Re: "Things would be far, far, FAR worse had McCain or Romney been elected,"

Nonsensical unprovable speculation.

Mr. Obama has essentially continued the Bush Admin. economic policies - ON STEROIDS.


Deertracker, Resign would be a start.
I won't comment further because trying to explain economics to the Left-Wingers well, I might as well explain in Chinese.


...and if Obama keeps up the "good" work,you WILL be explaining it in Chinese!


It's hard to explain something you have NO knowledge of.


"It's hard to explain something you have NO knowledge of."

That is why no one expects you to explain any of the statements you make.


No, YOU are just not intelligent enough. Not my fault. Try being logical instead of grumpy! Might help!


it's funny how everyone says that if you could explain economics to someone, then it would make sense. It should not be that hard, people with money need to spend money in order for everyone else to be able to have the money to spend to help keep the rich a@@holes in their plush new homes and fancy cars, but the rich just want to keep their money for themselves and screw everyone else, which in the end will only screw themselves, but your right economics is too hard to understand if your a rightwing nutjob


Re: "but the rich just want to keep their money for themselves"

And where do they keep it?

In a shoebox under a bed? In a closet?

The Big Dog's back

Speaking of right wing nutjobs.


The deficit has risen under every GOP president over the past 30 years, and has fallen under every Democrat president over the same time span. Bush put two unfunded wars on our country's credit card, while lowering incoming funding via tax cuts. That's called fiscally irresponsible or fiscally stupid - take your pick.

Republicans continue to seek to starve our economy through Draconian tax cuts, at precisely the time when most economic experts say the exact opposite should be done. The current president is still fixing the last GOP economy screw-up.

Why do people like EZOB deny that our shared history - the past 13 years we have all lived through - actually happened? It's only been 5 years since the Bush Recession, the worst since the 1930's. I would no more consult a Republican for national economic strategy than I would consult a sumo wrestler for diet hints.


It is funny that even your metaphor is completely wrong. Sumo wrestlers main purpose is to deal 24/7 with a diet, You may not understand what a diet actually is so ill help you.

1 [dahy-it] Show IPA noun, verb, di·et·ed, di·et·ing, adjective

food and drink considered in terms of its qualities, composition, and its effects on health: Milk is a wholesome article of diet.

a particular selection of food, especially as designed or prescribed to improve a person's physical condition or to prevent or treat a disease: a diet low in sugar.

such a selection or a limitation on the amount a person eats for reducing weight: No pie for me, I'm on a diet.

the foods eaten, as by a particular person or group: The native diet consists of fish and fruit.

food or feed habitually eaten or provided:
Thats the Sumo wrestlers main occupation is dealing with diets to maintain thier weight http://www.livestrong.com/articl... Maybe if you knew more about the world around you people could take you serious.


You need to learn to spell. You also need a diet that does not include faux news!


LOL, I'll admit that I don't know diddly about sumo wrestling. I'll pick a different metaphor. How's this: I would no more consult a Republican for economic strategy hints than I would consult a Republican for scientific strategy on global warming or scientific information on human conception.

The only people I know who don't take me seriously are extreme rightwingnuts. I can absolutely live with that.


The only people who take you serious are the gullible. From what i have seen you only rehash Obama talking points to the point where you are a fanatic, Nobody to be taken seriously at all. (If you havent noticed You guy in the WH is bailing out eveyone BUT you)


Did you get bailed out?


So you try to insult me? It is comical that you think i actually respect you enough to be offended. I always know when i hit too close to the mark, You Worshippers get all flustered and start trying to insult, Thanks for the validation i am correct.


I don't care for or need your respect. Don't flatter yourself!


"So you try to insult me?"

.......Donegan --- You're ANOTHER crank.< That's not an insult, that's a fact.


(You need to learn to spell. You also need a diet that does not include faux news)

Spell? (faux news) LOL


Yes, faux news!


faux news = Fox News

You've NEVER heard that , 2cents ?

People have been saying "Faux news" for years.


Okay, this year's deficit is less than the "new normal." Goodie. Enjoy it while it lasts, folks. Obamacare ALONE will institute a whole NEW "new normal" if it proceeds as planned, and even the most liberal of you are NOT gonna like it much...


Do you have health insurance? How has Obamacare affected it negatively? Are you paying more and getting less? Any kids under 26 or with health issues? Your constant whining is so TIRED!


No, I don't. And the latest premium information I've got (for an Obamacare-compliant policy) shows the monthly costs to be even higher than the premiums I couldn't afford several years ago, and which made me drop my coverage in the first place. So lucky me: I get to risk everything by TRYING to pay premiums I won't be able to keep up for long, or I get to pay a fine for not buying something the government has no business forcing ANYbody to buy (and those fines, as they escalate, will ALSO prove unaffordable).

I'm not JUST against Obamacare because it's unconstitutional as he11. I'm against Obamacare PERSONALLY because it's risking all I have, quite literally. That's not a complaint; it's a fact. What, pray tell, do you suggest everyone like ME does about it, eh? Let's hear YOU come up with some rational and reasonable answers for a change!


The health exchanges are not set up yet Sam so where did you get your quote? How much are you going to pay if you need to go the ER? How is it the fault of Obamacare you had to drop your ins. years ago? How are you risking EVERYTHING by having health ins.? Is this fine going to come in the mail or is it going to be like a citation? Unconstitutional? SCOTUS disagrees. You have no ideal what rational or reasonable even means.


There are numerous places both online and locally where you can get quotes on several different levels of Obamacare-compliant policies. Pick one.

It's not the fault of Obamacare I had to drop my insurance several years ago. It IS, however, the fault of Obamacare that premiums are increasing DRAMATICALLY over and above what was already too costly.

How am I risking everything? Gosh, let's see: If I pay the insurance premium, can I pay my mortgage? If I pay the insurance premium, can I buy groceries? If I pay the insurance premium, can I pay the utility bills? The answer is NO. I'll have to pick and choose. And which of those things can I get away with NOT paying for long, eh?

As for the Obamacare fines, I think you've just proved to everybody here how ignorant you are of some of the biggest and most obvious parts and pieces of the law! Every year, when I pay my taxes, I'll have to PROVE I have insurance coverage. If I can't, the "fine" is added to my tax bill (the fine schedule has been out for awhile now — I saw it this spring at my tax preparer's office). And we all know how successful failing to pay the I.R.S. can be, don't we?

SCOTUS decided to call the fine a "tax," not a fine. That's the only reason it was narrowly upheld. But there's another problem with that scenario, which also happens to be a Constitutional matter. Obamacare originated in the Senate, and only the HOUSE can initiate taxation.

I do know EXACTLY what "rational" and "reasonable" mean. But since you had no answer, I'm guessing you either don't, or you DO and are unable to provide an answer that fits that criteria!

The Big Dog's back



Delusional, eh? And what part of what I said was untrue or otherwise a figment of my imagination? And what part of the QUESTION I asked is apparently unanswerable by you Obamaphiles?


If ok w/you, I"ll leave it up to ME as to what I'm going to like. And everything I read so far mentions that in states where Obamacare is allowed to work, it's working exactly like it's designed to. People are already getting rebates from their insurance companies, and health insurance rates are dropping.

If a conservative tells me I'm not going to like it, that is "code" for: it really will help the middle class/poor.


Maybe what you read is just pure old liberal claptrap. Get your head out of Salon, Slate or Huffpo!!