U.S. Reported Budget Surplus of $59.1 Billion in April

[Abe Hoffman]

The U.S. government posted a budget surplus in April, the first in more than three years, as tax revenue climbed and spending dropped.

Receipts topped outlays by $59.1 billion compared with a deficit of $40.4 billion in April 2011, the Treasury Department said today.

“The total federal budget deficit is slowly shrinking,” said Steven Wood, president of Insight Economics LLC in Danville, California. “However, this improvement has been halting, due largely to erratic economic and employment growth.”

U.S. Posted Budget Surplus of $59.1 Billion in April - Bloomberg

 

[MG1968]

did the Obamas take fewer trips in April?

 

[YorkVol]

I smell a tax cut!













ah HA HA HA HA! I crack myself up.

 

[Thrasher865]

I'd rather any surplus go towards the national debt at this point than tax breaks.

 

[utvolpj]

budget?

 

[golfballs]

budget?

 

[Gramps]

budget?

Obama and Reid asks, What's a budget?

 

[golfballs]

What is this budget word?

 

[volinbham]

Obviously due to the April tax deadline.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Obviously due to the April tax deadline.

Do not mix facts into this, that will get you no where.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'd rather any surplus go towards the national debt at this point than tax breaks.

This.

 

[TheDeeble]

Doesn't there have to be a budget to be a surplus?

 

[Thrasher865]

Doesn't there have to be a budget to be a surplus?

lolwut? Budgets are for the future. This is in the past. I confused.

 

[rjd970]

budget?

this was my first thought

 

[Gramps]

I'm an old dumb country boy but my daddy taught me that in order to have a surplus there has to be a budget in place.

 

[Thrasher865]

Let me help you guys....

Revenue > Expenditures = Surplus
Revenue < Expenditures = Deficit

Cleared up? You can budget for a surplus, and you can achieve a surplus. I don't think everybody's on the same page. We are talking about April. They received more revenue than expenses, so there was a surplus.... What they budgeted for is irrelevant. Or am I missing something?

 

[volinbham]

Let me help you guys....

Revenue > Expenditures = Surplus
Revenue < Expenditures = Deficit

Cleared up? You can budget for a surplus, and you can achieve a surplus. I don't think everybody's on the same page. We are talking about April. They received more revenue than expenses, so there was a surplus.... What they budgeted for is irrelevant. Or am I missing something?

The article refers to it as a budget surplus. No budget = no budget surplus. Operating surplus may have been a better term.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Obviously due to the April tax deadline.

cleverly hidden in the article was that this number was "influenced by timing."

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than us trying to pretend that we've actually had a surplus?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Let me help you guys....

Revenue > Expenditures = Surplus
Revenue < Expenditures = Deficit

Cleared up? You can budget for a surplus, and you can achieve a surplus. I don't think everybody's on the same page. We are talking about April. They received more revenue than expenses, so there was a surplus.... What they budgeted for is irrelevant. Or am I missing something?

you're also implying cash accounting, which isn't how the world tends to operate.

 

[Thrasher865]

The article refers to it as a budget surplus. No budget = no budget surplus. Operating surplus may have been a better term.

Yeah, I noticed that they threw that term out there in the title. But reading the first couple paragraphs, it was clear that they were talking about an operating surplus. I guess they just threw out the term budget because that's the term they think of when they think of the financials of the gov't.

 

[myrobbins7]

cleverly hidden in the article was that this number was "influenced by timing."

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than us trying to pretend that we've actually had a surplus?

+1.

 

[Thrasher865]

you're also implying cash accounting, which isn't how the world tends to operate.

Okay, not really. Even if you're talking accrual based accounting, that's how it works. You just tally Revenues and Expenses differently.

 

[Thrasher865]

However, your point about this being influenced by timing is spot on. An annual surplus is what we need, not a monthly surplus.

As to the accrual vs. cash system. We use a cash based accounting method, simply because we will have bills outstanding for up to a year.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Okay, not really. Even if you're talking accrual based accounting, that's how it works. You just tally Revenues and Expenses differently.

but you don't ever tie it to calendar months, period. If you want to do that, we need some Balance sheet help to actually begin to understand the reality of the cash flow situation. Bottom line is that we damn sure spent more than we took in and anyone stating otherwise is playing an accounting game.

 

[Thrasher865]

but you don't ever tie it to calendar months, period. If you want to do that, we need some Balance sheet help to actually begin to understand the reality of the cash flow situation. Bottom line is that we damn sure spent more than we took in and anyone stating otherwise is playing an accounting game.

However, your point about this being influenced by timing is spot on. An annual surplus is what we need, not a monthly surplus.

:good!:

I was only pointing out semantics about "you can't have a surplus without a budget." Pointing out that they were talking about operating surplus, due to the way the article was worded.

I completely agree with you about the insanity of touting a monthly surplus. That just means there's another month somewhere in the year that is going to show an unrepresentative high deficit.