Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama’s Deficit Projections Off by $2.3 Trillion, Congressional Budget Office Says
(CNSNews.com) – The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Obama’s budget and deficit projections are too low. The president’s budget will incur $9.3 trillion in federal deficits between 2010 and 2019 --$2.3 trillion higher than Obama had originally claimed.
Where were you screaming little piggies all through the Bush years as he spent like a drunken sailor?
Obama’s Deficit Projections Off by $2.3 Trillion, Congressional Budget Office Says
(CNSNews.com) – The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Obama’s budget and deficit projections are too low. The president’s budget will incur $9.3 trillion in federal deficits between 2010 and 2019 --$2.3 trillion higher than Obama had originally claimed.
I dunno. Depends on how you look at it. We already got $10 trillion in debt from the previous Republican administrations. So double or triple your estimate and that's about right.
Only if by "spending" you are including the cost of transparency (wars, banning budget tricks) and the cost of TARP (signed by Bush).
The wars didn't count against the deficit in the previous administration.
They do now.
Obama made the decision to have things he knew we pay for, appear on the budget, for the first time in years.
He is changing things. And its pointless to argue the meaning of "change".
Yes it is.
The entire purpose of the stimulus ... that is doing something about it.
Maybe you'd do me the favor of telling me why you think that.
Is it based on fears of "spending", when compared to fake budget numbers from the year before?
I have no idea what this part refers to.
I've already explained why its a poor analogy.
1. Your analogy has you, a single person, representing the country
2. Important to a discussion of the economy, would be jobs.
3. How are you representing jobs, or demand/spending...
You only representing the US, and your debt=US debt.
It's not complete.
Ok, real simple.
Economy + Stimulus = more jobs than without, more demand than without.
Your analogy was too simple. I've explained why more than once.
What do you want? Links that prove every statement I've made?
Be more specific.
Do you want the summary of what's changed in the budget from last year?
By the way, the budget is freely available.
Not secret info.
We'll see how it shakes out. Unfortunately I doubt we will have a "I told you so" post here (whichever way it goes) 5, 10 or 20 years from now.
Haha, people are attempting that now - to say the stimulus failed, before its really begun.
I understand reluctance to spend.
I question the timing of people's decision of when to start paying attention to spending.
And I question the knowledge of someone who makes generic claims of "outrageous spending" without realizing that 80% of it would have occurred regardless of who was elected president, or whether or not the stimulus ever existed.
If you weren't complaining about the bush tax cuts which cost us 1.6 trillion, I don't understand complaining now about something that cost half as much and will be more effective stimulus.
Haha, people are attempting that now - to say the stimulus failed, before its really begun.
Wrong, people are
1) Claiming that the stimulus is responsible for the "speculative" recovery we are seeing, which even you've claimed, hasnt "really begun"
2) Showing that Obama was wrong with his unemployment figures due to his "stimulus"
3) Talked about the INCREASED deficits, (yes it went up substantially) dont pretend its not..
Not so much how many generations to pay the deficit money back but how much MORE deficit spending will there be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? One administration can take over and straighten out the country and tax collection increases with money flowing in to the government coffers. The next administration sees all that lovely money and starts spending, spending, spending to buy votes and we have incredible debt and a recession again. The problem with the majority of voters is they do not understand economics and it is not taught in schools like it used to be. They will vote for every politician that promises more power to sub groups and more freebies.
Yes, just as had been previously reported within the projected $185 billion ARRA deficit. That was right before I was accused of ignoring these two tax credits because you didn't know that they were a part of ARRA. Pretty glaring error to have made there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Only relevant if the deficit was = < $185 billion.. Since its not, your trying to lie and pretend that it matters.
No. Recall that your entirely bogus claim was that all $787 billion of ARRA was to be counted, even though the deficit is larger than that as well. Looks like you fail your own ridiculous test, not to mention the far more rational tests of people who actually know what they are talking about. For at least the third time, ARRA creates an FY2009 deficit of about $185 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The fact that it has not yet been spent again holds no relevance since the money has already been allocated.
J-u-u-u-st a little outside. Hint: What you call allocations do not create deficits. Spending does. You again seem not to understand how any of this works at all. Facts...accounting...you're stumbling over literally everything in sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm sure your even smart enough to know that if you borrow money and put it in the bank, the fact that you havent spent the funds doesnt mean you dont need to pay interest on whats borrowed.
And I'd be at least optimistic that you're smart enough to know that if you leave lettuce in the fridge long enough, it turns into this slimey, gooey stuff. But this, like your bank loan story, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. An appropriation is not remotely comparable to a loan. No interest is owed to anyone because of it. It's a paper transaction only. First Treasury has access to the money, then an operating agency does. No contribution to any deficit occurs until somebody spends it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
First you claim that the war funds hold relevance for the huge deficitns, now your claiming they have "zero" effect. Admit your just making this up as you go along..
Admit that, once again, you have no understanding of the topic. Obama's inclusion of funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY2010 budget has no effect at all on the FY2009 deficit. But it does increase projected budget deficits for FY2010. It's the latter effect that Bush tried to avoid by never including anything at all for the war in his budgets, funding all of it via emergency supplemental appropriations as if the whole entreprise had come to him each year as a complete surprise. What a flunkie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ahh, see here is where you again start to get it wrong, food stamps, unemployment, state budgets are not federal liabilities.
Well then, we can certainly add food stamps and unemployment insurance to the ever-growing list of things that you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Lets not even discuss that all of these bailouts make us worse off, not better off than the day before, the concempt would escape you.
Yes, I'm sure it would escape me, as there isn't the slightest basis for the claim. Which is why you haven't so much as attempted to present one. Tell me, are you guys done whining that funds for bridge and highway infrastructure improvements aren't going to places that don't have any bridges or highways, or are we just giving that one a rest for a while?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
translation: NO one made the claim that the stimulus bill would boost the economy, which pretty much defeats the pupose of a "stimulus" bill..
Jobs are created by demand. Aggregate demand has been sinking like a stone. The stimulus bill creates new demand, and it does so by funding programs that promote far more total demand than the only idea that the failed right-wing has ever had -- more tax cuts for the rich. Is $787 billion over two to three years enough to turn a $14 trillion economy on a dime? Nope. Is it a significant step in the right direction? Yup. Unless of course your preference would be to see a Katrina-like response repeated on a national and global scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
More lies, Bush was doing just fine until Democrats took over Congress.. Of course you dont care about issues, everything is "Bush Bush Bush".. Will you still be blaming him next year? Probably..
There was never a time when Bush was doing just fine. His regrettable eight years in office were a miserable failure...a relentless progression from one calamitous error to another. His legacy is one of all but incomprehensible error and incompetence. At least two years too late, the electorate awoke to that fact in 2006, administering a thorough "thumping" to Bush and the Republicans. Two years later, the people poured them yet another wholesome glass of "Get Lost". And for very good reasons, one of which was the shameless partisan obstructionism of Republicans in the 110th Congress. As for next year, I will definitely still be blaming Bush. And after I'm eventually gone, historians will be blaming him 50 and 100 years from now. There is no way that he and the people who put him into power will ever escape the condemnation that they have so richly earned for themselves. Better get used to this idea. It isn't going to go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No one is claiming that Obama is not responsible for his programs and the debt, but all you've done is make excuse after excuse after excuse. Dont worry, I expect nothing less..
All you've done is fumble and bumble about in misguided and misinformed attempts to establish any credibility for your cause at all. You have none, and all the half-baked attempts at smoke-and-mirrors in the world simply aren't going to change that fact. You don't have a credible argument to make. All that the desperation of your entirely imitation arguments accomplishes is a further confirmation of that fact.
Yes, just as had been previously reported within the projected $185 billion ARRA deficit. That was right before I was accused of ignoring these two tax credits because you didn't know that they were a part of ARRA. Pretty glaring error to have made there.
The deficit isnt $185 Billion its $1.85 trillion, add a little zero and then account for the OTHER ADDED deficits, and you want to talk about glaring errors.. please
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No. Recall that your entirely bogus claim was that all $787 billion of ARRA was to be counted, even though the deficit is larger than that as well. Looks like you fail your own ridiculous test, not to mention the far more rational tests of people who actually know what they are talking about. For at least the third time, ARRA creates an FY2009 deficit of about $185 billion.
And AGAIN, the projected TOTAL deficit is 10 TIMES that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
J-u-u-u-st a little outside. Hint: What you call allocations do not create deficits. Spending does. You again seem not to understand how any of this works at all. Facts...accounting...you're stumbling over literally everything in sight.
No **** Shirlock homes, but allocations does reduce buying power and increases risk and payable interest rates. No different than someone having 100 lines of credit even though they are not being used. Do you even understand basic risk analysis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And I'd be at least optimistic that you're smart enough to know that if you leave lettuce in the fridge long enough, it turns into this slimey, gooey stuff. But this, like your bank loan story, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. An appropriation is not remotely comparable to a loan. No interest is owed to anyone because of it. It's a paper transaction only. First Treasury has access to the money, then an operating agency does. No contribution to any deficit occurs until somebody spends it.
Only in lala land can you pretend that allocation of funds have no affect upon future borrowing and interest rates, which of course, increase deficits with increased rates. None of this though explains how you can be missing a zero above. Nice try though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Admit that, once again, you have no understanding of the topic. Obama's inclusion of funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY2010 budget has no effect at all on the FY2009 deficit. But it does increase projected budget deficits for FY2010. It's the latter effect that Bush tried to avoid by never including anything at all for the war in his budgets, funding all of it via emergency supplemental appropriations as if the whole entreprise had come to him each year as a complete surprise. What a flunkie.
Once again you failed to read my postings and assume that I excluded the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. Since it has "no effect", mind telling me what the OTHER expenses are that makes the deficits go from $459 billion to $1.85 TRILLION? Even after you add the $400 Billion "off budget" items that Bush had into the equation, you still have about $900 Billion MORE to account for. Must be your fuzzy math again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Well then, we can certainly add food stamps and unemployment insurance to the ever-growing list of things that you don't understand.
I totally understand that the federal government "buys" the states off with money, the fact that you fail to understand this isnt surprising considering your fuzzy math above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Yes, I'm sure it would escape me, as there isn't the slightest basis for the claim. Which is why you haven't so much as attempted to present one.
Yes, the fact that higher deficits = higher future taxes = less jobs and less economic growth, a reality that actually does escape you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Tell me, are you guys done whining that funds for bridge and highway infrastructure improvements aren't going to places that don't have any bridges or highways, or are we just giving that one a rest for a while?
Who the hell ever made that claim? Tell me, are you just making this up as you go along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Jobs are created by demand. Aggregate demand has been sinking like a stone.
Due to the federal government, their panicking of the market, their manipulating of interest rates, manipulating credit requirements for homes, down payment requirements, tax structures, and the governmental increasing of mandated expenses like higher wages.. You can pretend that the government didnt cause the bubble, but to be able to make such claims your head must be inside another bubble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The stimulus bill creates new demand, and it does so by funding programs that promote far more total demand than the only idea that the failed right-wing has ever had -- more tax cuts for the rich.
Tell me how tax cuts for the poor is working out? Remind me again how many jobs thats creating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Is $787 billion over two to three years enough to turn a $14 trillion economy on a dime? Nope. Is it a significant step in the right direction? Yup. Unless of course your preference would be to see a Katrina-like response repeated on a national and global scale.
Ahh, there goes that $787 billion again, funded how? DEFICITS, and then you go back to your first response and proclaim that the only reason deficits increased is due to moving Bushs "off budget" items "on budget" and then you go and repeat this again, as if this contributes nothing to the debt.. Lets not even think about the fact that you just criticized tax cuts, and the results the tax cuts have on the budget.. Yeah, I know, not Obamas fault.. never is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There was never a time when Bush was doing just fine. His regrettable eight years in office were a miserable failure...a relentless progression from one calamitous error to another. His legacy is one of all but incomprehensible error and incompetence.
Ahh, lets go back to my comment about someones head being in a bubble, obviously yours was. If your life was so miserable under "Bush", thats your fault, most people I know did fine until Democrats took over Congress. And no, Most people I know are not even close to being "rich". Stop blaming Bush for your failures..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
At least two years too late, the electorate awoke to that fact in 2006, administering a thorough "thumping" to Bush and the Republicans. Two years later, the people poured them yet another wholesome glass of "Get Lost"
The electorate was bought and paid for, its called bribery at our childrens expense, something Democrats care little about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
As for next year, I will definitely still be blaming Bush.
You will still be blaming Bush for your failures even two years from now? Man you life must suck to have such a grim outlook for the future. Need to use the local library for your computer access?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And after I'm eventually gone, historians will be blaming him 50 and 100 years from now.
They said the same about Reagan..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There is no way that he and the people who put him into power will ever escape the condemnation that they have so richly earned for themselves. Better get used to this idea. It isn't going to go away.
And odly enough you've already tried making excuses for Obama and his incompetence..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
All you've done is fumble and bumble about in misguided and misinformed attempts to establish any credibility for your cause at all. You have none, and all the half-baked attempts at smoke-and-mirrors in the world simply aren't going to change that fact. You don't have a credible argument to make. All that the desperation of your entirely imitation arguments accomplishes is a further confirmation of that fact.
All you've done is deflect from the issue and name call. Until you actually come to reality and want to discuss the increased deficit, and I mean AFTER you move the Bush "off budget" items "on budget", your postings are meaningless. Your convoluted math keeps saying that the reason the deficits ballooned from $459 billion to $1.85 TRILLION is simply due to moving "off budget" items "on budget", a statement that is full of crap and you know it.. Off budget items were an estimated $400 billion, you still have about $900 billion to account for.
The government has spent/guaranteed almost the total GDP for TARP
Sheesh! Maybe people could at least recognize what TARP is and isn't. And maybe one day they could recognize that spending is a commitment of 100 cents out of every dollar while guarantees are a commitment of as little as a few cents out of every dollar. This is yet another bag of hot air argument, the only kind the right-wing can actually manage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The stimulus was not $200 Billion. Spending for it is spread over multiple years but funding for it has to be allowcated the year that it was approved because it reduced the ultimate borrowing capability of the government that year.
What??? This is patently absurd. If I promise my wife that we will buy some nice new car in 2012, I do not start making monthly payments on it now, nor does that promise limit my current access to credit in any way. Your claim goes well beyond mere fluff and into the realm of the completely ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The proposed funding for the war is $188+/- Billion, not $400 Billion, and moving this into the budget is not in question, but this does not explain the trillions in the red. $188 billion, (or even $400 billion) does not equal TRILLIONS, no matter what kind of fuzzy math you use.
More lack of understanding. The $400 billion number includes the ending of more Bush gimmicks than merely those associated with Iraq and Afghanistan. Other significant deficit-disguising ploys that have been abandoned are associated with Medicare reimbursements to physicians, forward accounting for domestic natural disasters, and AMT relief for less than upper-income taxpayers. Bush simply assumed that all of these costs would come to $0 every year, even though there has never been any relevant year in which they did. Obama's budget recognizes that while the final numbers for these costs can't be known in advance, the fact that they will occur can, so a reasonable placeholder for each of them is included within the budget numbers. See how much more honest that is???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I know, not Obamas fault.. never is...
