Question about US deficit

GuanoApes

Green Belt
@Green
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
962
Reaction score
102
I hear that the deficit for USA in 2015 was $439 Billion. According to this site.

http://crfb.org/papers/fy-2015-deficit-falls-439-billion-debt-continues-rise

However, according to this site, USA spends $598 Billion on the military alone..

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

So, how is this possible..? I thought deficit was how much money per year a country loses, or goes into debt..

Are other countries re-paying debt back to us.?

I think that just means they spent $439 billion more than they took in.

Either way, a pittance compared to the $18 trillion of total US debt.
 
The deficit doesn't mean we can't pay for the military or anything else.
 
Deficit is the difference between how much money you are making, vs how much you are spending.

If I make $10, and spend $11 total, my deficit is $1. Even if $8 of the $11 I spend is on military.
 
I hear that the deficit for USA in 2015 was $439 Billion. According to this site.

http://crfb.org/papers/fy-2015-deficit-falls-439-billion-debt-continues-rise

However, according to this site, USA spends $598 Billion on the military alone..

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

So, how is this possible..? I thought deficit was how much money per year a country loses, or goes into debt..

Are other countries re-paying debt back to us.?
We can auction infinite amount treasuries and if no one buys them we can buy them.

weakens the dollar but the fact is workers are putting their retirement in treasuries and other countries are putting their equity in our debt because the reality of the world is america isnt leaving any time soon and we will continue to kick ass for the forseeable future.
 
I think that just means they spent $439 billion more than they took in.

Either way, a pittance compared to the $18 trillion of total US debt.

Agree but if you look at the games the federal government always plays to paint a better picture, the shortfall was $80b more than the figure he quoted; or $520b. $3,334b in revenue minus $3,854b in expenses. $439 is a figure they get to by making cash-flow like adjustments to the net loss to show it as less.

And it's the $520b figure that results in our net negative position (exclusing social obligation liabilities like social security) from increasing to $18.2T from $17.7T

page 56-58

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/finrep/fr/15frusg/02242016_FR(Final).pdf
 
I think the US also projected to spend 716 billion on Social Security and only about 646 coming in towards the program from income tax.
 
just put it on the tab

we'll pay it off in 200 years
 
If the debt doesn't matter, then why don't why all the fuss about how expensive Sander's proposals would be?
Lets fix and upgrade our infrastructure, make medicare for all, make state colleges free (and forgive all student loan debt), create a full-employment society, and secure our borders.
 
If the debt doesn't matter, then why don't why all the fuss about how expensive Sander's proposals would be?
Lets fix and upgrade our infrastructure, make medicare for all, make state colleges free (and forgive all student loan debt), create a full-employment society, and secure our borders.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic but...

It does matter, not as some republicans and conspiracy theorists want people to believe, but it matters. The US or any other country that issues debt on a currency they can "print" will never default, as they can simply print more to pay the debt, but that creates inflation. Too much inflation affects mostly the poor as their money become worthless, while rich people usually have assets that will compensate for inflation.
 
If the debt doesn't matter, then why don't why all the fuss about how expensive Sander's proposals would be?

It would be nice if people were able to acknowledge the difference between "current and projected levels of debt are not a problem" and "debt can never possibly be a problem." Doesn't actually seem to be that difficult to understand the difference. And the knock on Sanders' proposals have been more along the lines of "taxes will have to be raised more than he's saying"--basically that he hasn't been honest in selling the proposals. The proposals themselves are not bad, though that bit of dishonesty illustrates the difficulty in selling them to the public.

It does matter, not as some republicans and conspiracy theorists want people to believe, but it matters. The US or any other country that issues debt on a currency they can "print" will never default, as they can simply print more to pay the debt, but that creates inflation. Too much inflation affects mostly the poor as their money become worthless, while rich people usually have assets that will compensate for inflation.

Higher than expected inflation actually benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (which is why people who primarily care about upward redistribution flip the fuck out at even remote indications of rising inflation), and generally, higher inflation tends to tighten labor markets (meaning lower unemployment and rising wages), which also benefits the poor and middle class more than the rich. Again, as with the debt (and I shouldn't need to say this), that doesn't mean that inflation can never ever be a problem for regular people.
 
Back
Top