US Expects First Cut in Debt Since 2007

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

US Expects First Cut in Debt Since 2007




The U.S. Treasury expects to pay down debt in the second quarter of 2013 as the budget deficit that has dominated national politics starts to shrink.

The forecast of a quarter of net debt repayment for the first time since 2007 shows how:

  • tax increases;

  • a cyclical recovery in tax revenues; and

  • a squeeze on spending
are ratcheting down the budget deficit.​

Ahead of an announcement on Wednesday on the details of its quarterly borrowing schedule, the Treasury said it expects to repay a net $35 billion in the second quarter, compared with a February estimate that it would have to borrow $103 billion.

"The decrease in borrowing relates primarily to higher receipts, lower outlays, and changes in cash balance assumptions," said the Treasury.

The second quarter is always the best for government cash flow because tax returns are due in April. The Treasury expects to issue $223 billion of debt again in the third quarter.

But the return to one quarter a year of debt repayment highlights how aggressively the US has cut the deficit this year, despite concerns about growth and political wrangling over tax and spending decisions.

Nominal spending is basically unchanged since the final quarter of 2010, one of the longest periods of restraint in postwar U.S. history. Meanwhile, tax revenues have picked up with the economic recovery, and the expiration of a payroll tax break at the start of the year is adding about $10 billion a month to revenues.

"The paydown this quarter—the first since 2007—is emblematic of the turn in budget finances from horrible, to grim on their way to steadily better," said Eric Green, chief economist at TD Securities in New York.

The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the U.S. will borrow 6.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2013, down from 8.5 percent in 2012 and 10 percent in 2011. But analysts at Goldman Sachs estimate that in the first quarter of 2013 the deficit was running at a cyclically adjusted level of just 4.5 percent.

Bond investors have been expecting better U.S. fiscal data. Expectations of a falling net supply of Treasurys helped the yield on 10-year Treasury notes to approach their lows for the year on Monday, briefly dropping below 1.65 percent.

Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities, said the Treasury borrowing figures for this year suggest "no government funding pressure on the markets. This fits nicely with our call of returning to the July 2012 low in yields."

Ian Lyngen, strategist at CRT Capital, said falling net issuance while the Fed buys $45 billion of Treasurys a month represents "a shift that will surely keep downward pressure on yields."

He added: "As an aside, the improving fiscal situation of the U.S. Treasury does allow more time before the debt-ceiling becomes an issue again."


SOURCE


 
cricket.jpg
 
I guess that's good news to some people but it's still a sign tht the right wing smoke and mirrors about spending is winning the day when the most important issue needs to be job creation.
 
I guess that's good news to some people but it's still a sign tht the right wing smoke and mirrors about spending is winning the day when the most important issue needs to be job creation.
And if the government is sucking up more than a reasonable share of loanable funds, isn't that a detriment to job creation by a capital starved private sector. Except the banks. The banks get $80 billion a month plus some. But the little guy is being denied by those banks for loans because Treasuries are so readily available.
 
I guess that's good news to some people but it's still a sign tht the right wing smoke and mirrors about spending is winning the day when the most important issue needs to be job creation.

True. In fact job creation has for the most part disappeared from the national conversation as a priority.

What is disturbing is that the debt is being shrunk, not by the true cause of it's increase, the lack of contribution of corporate taxes, defense increases, military increases and so called homeland security expenditures. All since 2001, which didn't even exist till after 911, but by the things that will weaken our competitiveness as a nation in the future, such as educational, infrastructural and technical investments.
 
And if the government is sucking up more than a reasonable share of loanable funds, isn't that a detriment to job creation by a capital starved private sector. Except the banks. The banks get $80 billion a month plus some. But the little guy is being denied by those banks for loans because Treasuries are so readily available.

To your type, this is a good thing right? Inflation is almost non existent, currently the government has little regulation over private industry and the elitists (classist as you put it) are paying the lowest percentage of taxes since Eisenhower (the good old days to you).


Stop with your feign outrage, it's sickening.
 
True. In fact job creation has for the most part disappeared from the national conversation as a priority.
Maybe because politicans were never serious about it and only wanted votes. Are you new to life?

What is disturbing is that the debt is being shrunk, not by the true cause of it's increase, the lack of contribution of corporate taxes, defense increases, military increases and so called homeland security expenditures. All since 2001, which didn't even exist till after 911, but by the things that will weaken our competitiveness as a nation in the future, such as educational, infrastructural and technical investments.
You find an expection to pay off $35 billion of a $16 trillion dollar debt disturbing?

No wonder nothing substantial gets done about the debt.
 
And if the government is sucking up more than a reasonable share of loanable funds, isn't that a detriment to job creation by a capital starved private sector. Except the banks. The banks get $80 billion a month plus some. But the little guy is being denied by those banks for loans because Treasuries are so readily available.

So the problem, by your post, isn't really the government at all but banks hoarding money. Money they receive very cheaply but are slow to part with.

Maybe because politicans were never serious about it and only wanted votes. Are you new to life?


.


No, there are many, many politicians in DC and throughout the country serious about job creation but there seem to be more who are not because it's not politically advantageous for their party for there to be any significant movement on that front.
 
Maybe because politicans were never serious about it and only wanted votes. Are you new to life?

The politicians that continually block job creation legislation aren't. You know which political persuasion they belong to. Aren't you one of them?


You find an expection to pay off $35 billion of a $16 trillion dollar debt disturbing?

As if the politicians you say are not serious about job creation are serious about the debt. In fact, under GW when the debt was $10 trillion and rising, you weren't disturbed about that then either.

No wonder nothing substantial gets done about the debt.

Because according to your type (at least under Cheney} defects don't matter.
 
To your type, this is a good thing right?
My type is a big booty girl with a job and it would be a good thing to her.

Inflation is almost non existent,
All market indicators of inflation are up, the government says it's low. I'm going with the market.

currently the government has little regulation over private industry
There are 3.8 trillion contradictions to your belief.

How do we have limited government and a budget this big?


and the elitists (classist as you put it) are paying the lowest percentage of taxes since Eisenhower (the good old days to you).
Actually they pay lower than you think since your government has given them so much to get through the recession.

I bet over multiple years, their total liability nets to zero at best.

Thanks for saving us with TARP and the rest of the bailouts.


Stop with your feign outrage, it's sickening.
It's not outrage at all, feigned or real. It's acknowledgment of how hard all of you worked to get us where we are today.

Good job, you won.
 
So the problem, by your post, isn't really the government at all but banks hoarding money. Money they receive very cheaply but are slow to part with.
They aren't parting with it at all.

The government is at fault because the government is actively paying the banks to hold capital instead of lending it out. That's not a new story. In addition to subsidizing them $80 billion a month through the Fed.

Banks are economic actors responding to incentives. Risk-free returns through the government or loan out money to a small business.

No brainer, so reduce the subsidy preferably to zero.

No, there are many, many politicians in DC and throughout the country serious about job creation but there seem to be more who are not because it's not politically advantageous for their party for there to be any significant movement on that front.
You seem to be ignoring that the party that is "concerned" with job creation had a very effective large majority for 2 years. What proof are you using to determine they cared more than the other party about job creation?
 
You seem to be ignoring that the party that is "concerned" with job creation had a very effective large majority for 2 years. What proof are you using to determine they cared more than the other party about job creation?

Not ignoring that at all. It's a long proven fact that during those two years are the years the recession ended and the job losses stemmed. It slowed considerably, but not completely, once we got a divided government.
 
And if the government is sucking up more than a reasonable share of loanable funds, isn't that a detriment to job creation by a capital starved private sector.

Is that the same thing as saying, growth slows when debt is high ? ? ?
 
Is that the same thing as saying, growth slows when debt is high ? ? ?
It is the same thing, which is still not controversial.

The study from the other thread is famous because it put a specific number of 90% debt-to-GDP ratio.

It wasn't controversial to suggest the inverse relationship between growth and government debt. That an old economic concept called crowding out.
 
Commodities, stock market, wage tensions, $4trillion+ in debt issued by your government, $23 trillion in programs dedicated to the financial industry, $80 billion per month currently flowing to rich people, and the spike in debt interest rates every once in a while that the Federal Reserves has to intervene to bring back down to the Fed target of 0.25%.

All this within the context, AS IF YOU GIVE A SHIT.
 
Commodities, stock market, wage tensions, $4trillion+ in debt issued by your government, $23 trillion in programs dedicated to the financial industry, $80 billion per month currently flowing to rich people, and the spike in debt interest rates every once in a while that the Federal Reserves has to intervene to bring back down to the Fed target of 0.25%.

All this within the context, AS IF YOU GIVE A SHIT.


I don't give a shit?


652.jpg
 
Back
Top