Skip to main content

Home/ AP/Honors Econ Make Up Discussion Articles/ Group items tagged federal

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
bparksj28

Chart of the Week: Where Does the Federal Government Get Its Revenue? - 0 views

blog.heritage.org/...ral-government-get-its-revenue

chart government federal revenue

shared by bparksj28 on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • bparksj28 on 10 Oct 12
     
    federal revenue by source
bparksj28

The fiscal cliff may be overblown - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet - 0 views

finance.fortune.cnn.com/...fiscal-cliff-2

cliff term

shared by bparksj28 on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • By not going off the cliff, the CBO estimates that deficits over the next decade would rise by a total of $7.7 trillion (that's "trillion" with a "T"). That would bring the total national debt somewhere to around $24 trillion by 2023 which is equal to 90% of GDP (that's pretty high). If we go off the cliff, don't expect a clean slate, though, as the nation would still have a significant budget deficit equal to 58% of GDP in 2023 due to all the mandatory spending associated with the impeding explosion in costs emanating from Social Security and Medicare.
  • The cuts in spending and the increased taxes will cause thousands of people to lose their jobs pretty much overnight (millions of Americans owe their jobs directly or indirectly to federal government spending). This would push unemployment up across the country from 7.9% to 9.1%. As a result, the CBO projects that real GDP would drop by 0.5% in 2013 after growing by 2.1% in 2012. Real GDP would fall at an annual rate of 2.9% in the first half of next year, tipping the nation into a recession that the CBO figures would be similar in magnitude to the one the nation experienced following the first Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s (for those who didn't live through that, it was bad)
  • Indeed, the fiscal cliff is about as real of a problem as the nation's burgeoning national debt – it's theoretically bad, but it isn't bad enough for Washington to risk making the short term any more economically unpleasant than it has to be. After all, there will be elections for the House in just two short years, so neither side wants to go into that election cycle trying to defend why the government instituted growth killing spending cuts while allowing taxes to shoot up to address some arbitrary debt load that investors continue to fund for next to nothing
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The increase in federal taxes and the reductions in federal spending would cut the budget deficit (the difference between how much revenue the government takes in how much it spends) from $1.1 trillion last year to $641 billion in fiscal 2013, roughly a $500 billion cut. That represents a reduction in the budget deficit (as a percentage share of GDP) not seen since 1969 when the conservative Richard Nixon booted the free-spending Lyndon Johnson out of the White House
  • The increase in federal taxes and the reductions in federal spending would cut the budget deficit (the difference between how much revenue the government takes in how much it spends) from $1.1 trillion last year to $641 billion in fiscal 2013, roughly a $500 billion cut. That represents a reduction in the budget deficit (as a percentage share of GDP) not seen since 1969 when the conservative Richard Nixon booted the free-spending Lyndon Johnson out of the White Hous
  • It is therefore hard for politicians to so brazenly throw the nation into a deep recession to reduce spending when the benefits of acting are so intangible. The fact is that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was political theater in which the Republicans tried to appease "Tea Party" voters – a constituency that has basically been wiped out as the economy has improved. Discussions around raising the marginal tax rate on the top 2% are simply just political fodder. Indeed, multiple studies, including ones by the CBO say that it would raise an insignificant amount of money (a negative for the Democratic view) but would also cause no real harm to the economy (a negative for the Republican view). In the end, if it takes changing the top 2% rate from 35% to 39.6% to end this whole fiscal cliff charade, you can bet it has already been agreed to
  • s it may sound, it is simply irrational for either side to address the deficit in any meaningful way given how cheaply it is for Washington to borrow money. As we have seen in Europe, nations won't swallow the bitter pill of austerity unless the markets force them to
  • As cynical
bparksj28

Discount Window Borrowings of Depository Institutions from the Federal Reserve (DISCBOR... - 0 views

research.stlouisfed.org/...DISCBORR

discount window institutions federal federal reserve reserve fred louis

shared by bparksj28 on 29 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • bparksj28 on 29 Oct 12
     
    Shows the use of the discount window of the Federal Reserve
bparksj28

Federal Reserve details new round of stress tests - Nov. 16, 2012 - 0 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by bparksj28 on 16 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The Federal Reserve, preparing to embark on its latest round of so-called stress tests, released the details Friday of three economic scenarios it will use to judge the health of the U.S.'s largest lenders.
  • 5% decline in gross domestic product, an unemployment rate of 12% and a volatile stock market which loses half its value.
  • The stress tests are mandated by Dodd-Frank, the financial reform law written in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that brought down Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Last year, the Fed's tests showed a majority of the nation's largest banks would be able to weather another deep recession.
  • Ally Financial, Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and SunTrust (STI, Fortune 500) -- would likely need new capital from either investors or the government in the Fed's adverse economic scenario
  • bparksj28 on 16 Nov 12
     
    Dodd-Frank Act - stress test 2012
bparksj28

Federal Reserve official wants low interest rates until unemployment falls to 6.5% - No... - 0 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by bparksj28 on 28 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, wants the central bank to keep the federal funds rate near zero until unemployment falls to 6.5% -- a jobless rate not seen since 2008.
  • in January he will rotate into a voting role on the Fed's policymaking committee. For about a year, he has been urging his colleagues to publish clear economic targets that would guide the central bank's policies.
  • . He wants to see the unemployment rate fall to at least 6.5% and inflation not exceed 2.5% a year
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • hope behind the policy is that numerical targets will lift some of the mystery surrounding the Fed's decisions.
  • As economic data is released, the public can base their expectations for Fed policy on a clearer picture of the central bank's goals.
  • "I support this approach because it would enable the public to immediately adjust its expectations concerning the timing of liftoff in response to new information affecting the economic outloo
  • The Fed has kept interest rates near zero since late 2008 in an effort to stimulate the economy. While the unemployment rate has since fallen slightly to 7.9%, the Fed is still unsatisfied with that level and has been pursuing additional alternative policies to boost the economy further.
  • The Fed's policymaking committee is next scheduled to meet Dec. 11-12.
bparksj28

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] (FYFSD) - FRED - St. Louis Fed - 0 views

research.stlouisfed.org/...FYFSD

federal surplus deficit

shared by bparksj28 on 10 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • bparksj28 on 10 Nov 12
     
    Budget Deficit/Surplus USA 1895-Current
bparksj28

Budget and Federal Debt - 0 views

www.gao.gov/...budgetdebt.html

shared by bparksj28 on 12 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • bparksj28 on 12 Nov 12
     
    percent of expenditures to interest 1941 - current USA
bparksj28

firstamendmentcenter.org: news - 0 views

archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx

Got Milk

shared by bparksj28 on 10 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • The Supreme Court today turned away a challenge by some dairy farmers who objected to funding ads showing famous people with milk mustaches asking "Got Milk?"
  • A federal appeals court last March relied heavily on the 1997 ruling when it threw out the dairy farmers' challenge to the program that, since 1984, has required them to subsidize generic ads. Dairy farmer
  • and other milk producers are assessed about $250 million a year for the popular ads.
  • bparksj28 on 10 Jan 13
     
    Got Milk Campaign Forced to Finance itself
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page