2014 Deficit estimate down to 514 billion

[jonny5]

The 2009 deficit was not Obama's.

FY2009 runs through Oct 2009. Obama signed several spending bills during that time. Want me to list them? Congress was likewise responsible.

For example, the stimulus was signed in Feb 2009, by Obama. How much was spent that FY? 169bn added to the deficit. Obama's name on the bill.

 

[Tettsuo]

Yes we can.

Thank God!

Can we also agree that Congress is responsible for budget and revenues according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and perhaps it is not all Bush's fault for the last recession (which happened when Dems controlled both houses) or all Obama's success in reducing the deficit when Republicans control the House

I agree that Congress controls the purse strings, but I don't agree that the President does not have MAJOR influence on the budget. Presidents drive quite a bit of the country's agenda. To assert otherwise would be terribly foolish and fly in the face of historical evidence.

Overall, I agree that Congress and the president shapes the policies that effect the country's finances.

 

[jonny5]

Obviously not.

CAN BE. And as a matter of fact, it was used the last few years to force spending caps.

 

[Eric7216]

mmmmm, Clinton benefitted from his own policies of raising the tax rate on the top bracket and limiting spending increases. It’s what President Obama tried to do but republicans wouldn’t let the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE AS SCHEDULED for the top 2%. (another republican policy to keep the deficit higher).

I think that Clinton benefitted from 1) the "peace dividend", the only time the US was not at war in my lifetime, from the fall of Berlin Wall to 9/11, 2) the Bush41 tax hikes on the rich, 3) the demographics of the baby boomers in prime earning years and not on SS yet, 4) the Internet economy, and 5) Republicans taking Congress and wanting fiscal responsibility. Clinton helped by knowing that "the era of big government is over".

Spending went up, in adjusted 2005 $, from $2,556B in FY2007 to $3,173B in FY2009 to $3,126B in FY2011, to $3,022B in FY2012. FY2007 and FY2012 were the bookends of Republican influenced Congress. I understand the FY2009 recession spending but not the FY2011 spending. BTW, the "Bush Tax Cuts" were to expire in Dec, 2010 if Congress did nothing. Republicans could not have impacted on Congress extending them for 2 years. And they were made permanent later. I oppose all tax cuts unless there is a balanced budget.

 

[DA60]

Total government spending has barely dropped at all since Obama took office - the deficit has ONLY dropped because of greater tax revenues.

And since there is NO WAY to prove that anything Obama has done has made the economy grow faster then had he done nothing, then Obama cannot rightfully take direct credit for the increase in tax revenues due to a recovering (as opposed to 'recovered') economy. All he can take credit for is increasing certain tax rates.

So, the only thing that Obama can rightfully take credit for in this deficit reduction is having raised some tax rates.

PLUS

From the OP report:

'Deficits Are Projected to Decline Through 2015 but Rise Thereafter, Further Boosting Federal Debt

Assuming no legislative action that would significantly affect revenues or spending, CBO projects that the federal budget deficit will fall from 4.1 percent of GDP last year to 2.6 percent in 2015—and then rise again, equalling about 4 percent of GDP between 2022 and 2024.'

So, thanks to Obama (and Congress) not taking steps to significantly lower overall government spending, this lower deficit is nothing but an aberration (according to the CBO). They will start to rise again before Obama leaves office.


PLUS - all this is TOTALLY dependent on the Fed keeping interest rates 'artificially' low. If they allow rates to rise by even 2.5% - the deficit will be right back over $1 trillion per year; as one extra % point equals (by my understanding) roughly $200 billion in extra federal debt interest payments.
A raise of 2.5% would equal a prime rate of 5.75%. The rate was 6% in January, '08.

So if the economy does improve enough for the Fed to let rates rise again, according to the CBO's projections, then the deficit WILL go back over $1 trillion per year.

So, the only way the deficit can stay under $1 trillion/year (according to the CBO) is if the economy continues to more-or-less stagnate.

Interesting.

Economy gets better - deficit shoots through the roof.

But for the deficit to stay at present level - the economy must continue to stagnate.


http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm

 

[a351]

Has the CBO ever been right about a projection past 3 days, ever?

Keep in mind that in recent years their projections have proven to be overly pessimistic.

 

[a351]

Only in liberal la-la-land will:

1. CBO estimates be lauded. It is well known that the CBO estimates change with the political weather. Heck, even the CBO regularly qualifies their estimates...saying they depend on current laws and spending to remain the same.

While its true that projections necessarily fluctuate alongside political changes, it's also an election year, which renders substantial policy shifts less likely. Even so, the CBO's recent deficit and debt projections have proved to be anything but overly-optimistic. They've rather consistently overestimated the deficits we would incur.

2. Obama be credited for something he didn't do. If Obama had gotten his way, government spending would have skyrocketed over the past 4 years. Liberals have pretty much forgotten all the new spending that Obama has proposed. The fact is, only the heroic efforts of the Republicans have held that spending to a minimum. And the liberals want to make people think Obama did it?

That's a popular position, but one that isn't necessarily correct. All in all, Obama's proposed budgets haven't deviated from the actual appropriations to the degree claimed, nor can the Republican led House take credit entirely. In fact, the two years in which he presided over a Democratic congress saw nearly the exact same amount shaved from his proposals.

What presidents requested and what Congress funded - The Washington Post

 

[a351]

Reducing the deficit by increasing taxes isn't really a sustainable way to go.

How so? Tax rates for every quintile remain quite comfortably below historical averages.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

Run the regression yourself.

And that is not even the angle i was going for.

So I followed your link. Then I exported the data to Excel and re-plotted because I could not figure out how to keep the web site tool from automatically rescaling the axis. Here is the result



Both data sets are plotted on a linear axis where the baseline is 0. I believe that the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure" applies here. In actuality these data sets have unrelated units and unrelated scales so that you can design the graph to fit your desired argument.

 

[Phys251]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! If you think the butthurt is bad now, wait until another Democratic president balances the budget...

 

[Phys251]

Can we at the very least agree that the deficit was indeed reduced? Can Conservatives agree to that fact?

Very, very unlikely. It's like getting a murderer to admit to his crime despite the fact that many people witnessed him do it.

 

[a351]

Didn't President Massengil claim that the stimulus would get the unemploymemt rate down to below 6 % by July 2012< LAUGH>

Stimulus>ineffective.
And how about those summers of recovery touted by Joe" biggest buffoon in politics" Biden. {smirk}

Stimulus>ineffective

Don't you think it's fair to judge the succes or failure by what the architects said it would do rather than slap some numbers together after the fact and spin it into something positive? [rhetorical-of course].

Stimulus>ineffective

The architects of the ARRA projected unemployment to top out at 8.5 percent (at the time it was 7.0 percent.) It had exceeded that figure in less than two months and reached an even 10 percent in the latter half of that year. The projected aggregate effects in terms of job creation was actually upheld by most credible analysis. While labeled an excuse by some, the blue chip consensus did in fact underestimate the severity of the crisis by a substantial margin.

 

[bubbabgone]

How so? Tax rates for every quintile remain quite comfortably below historical averages.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

That chart cuts off after 2009.
Subsequent years (after the tax cuts expired under Obama) the tax revenues jumped and continue to jump...and that sure wasn't because of a burgeoning economy...and new taxes were imposed...while spending also went up.

 

[bubbabgone]

The 2009 deficit was not Obama's.

I knew someone would say that but I expected it to be Vern first.
When does the increased debt, increased spending, lousy employment, GDP, 5+ year weak recovery, Obamacare disaster, etc. become Obama's?

 

[a351]

That chart cuts off after 2009.
Subsequent years (after the tax cuts expired under Obama) the tax revenues jumped and continue to jump

Tax revenues generally increase alongside economic growth and population growth. In real terms however, FY2013 was the first fiscal year to see revenues exceed that of FY2007 in the post-recession era.

..and that sure wasn't because of a burgeoning economy...and new taxes were imposed...while spending also went up.

Just a growing one. There's been no substantial change in tax policy in the time since. Effective tax rates remain at modern lows for more than 98 percent of Americans.

 

[bubbabgone]

Tax revenues generally increase alongside economic growth and population growth. In real terms however, FY2013 was the first fiscal year to see revenues exceed that of FY2007 in the post-recession era.

Just a growing one.

There's been no substantial change in tax policy in the time since.

Effective tax rates remain at modern lows for more than 98 percent of Americans.

You're mistaken.
The economy hasn't been growing enough to make enough of a difference.
Sure hasn't been of usual recovery strength ... even allowing for the strength of the recession.

 

[Mycroft]

While its true that projections necessarily fluctuate alongside political changes, it's also an election year, which renders substantial policy shifts less likely. Even so, the CBO's recent deficit and debt projections have proved to be anything but overly-optimistic. They've rather consistently overestimated the deficits we would incur.



That's a popular position, but one that isn't necessarily correct. All in all, Obama's proposed budgets haven't deviated from the actual appropriations to the degree claimed, nor can the Republican led House take credit entirely. In fact, the two years in which he presided over a Democratic congress saw nearly the exact same amount shaved from his proposals.

What presidents requested and what Congress funded - The Washington Post

Thank you, Republicans, for that. Or, do you honestly think that spending would not have skyrocketed? BTW, I wasn't even talking about budgets submitted by Obama...but spending and programs that were proposed by Obama. Granted, a portion of his proposals were not serious...but were only political stunts, but, believe me, our deficit spending would have jumped without the anchor of the Republicans holding them back.

 

[polgara]

I knew someone would say that but I expected it to be Vern first.
When does the increased debt, increased spending, lousy employment, GDP, 5+ year weak recovery, Obamacare disaster, etc. become Obama's?

Okay, give MTAech 2009, and let's go from there. It's all Obama since then, no matter how they try to spin it. If they think they are fooling anyone but themselves, especially since Obama said he was concentrating on jobs every year since then, but unemployed people have risen to 92 million, and since there are over 50 million now on food stamps just to survive, and since Obama has increased the debt by $ 7 trillion dollars in the same period, you'd think we all should be better off...so maybe they should rethink their talking points. People believe what they see with their own eyes, unfortunately, and they ain't happy, judging from every poll that's been done! :2mad:

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:!

 

[Kushinator]

So I followed your link. Then I exported the data to Excel and re-plotted because I could not figure out how to keep the web site tool from automatically rescaling the axis. Here is the result

View attachment 67161599

Both data sets are plotted on a linear axis where the baseline is 0. I believe that the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure" applies here. In actuality these data sets have unrelated units and unrelated scales so that you can design the graph to fit your desired argument.

So you have nothing to add, point taken.

I take it you ran the regression?

 

[Kushinator]

CAN BE. And as a matter of fact, it was used the last few years to force spending caps.

The debt ceiling has been rendered meaningless, but feel free to continue to obsess on it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

CAN BE. And as a matter of fact, it was used the last few years to force spending caps.

The federal debt "ceiling" is nothing but a (fictional?) target number, like the rest of the federal "budget", that is routinely increased by our congress critters, to facilitate spending more than taxation will cover. Unlike a credit card limit, that is controlled by the lender, the debt ceiling amount is controlled by the borrower.

 

[Kushinator]

And since there is NO WAY to prove that anything Obama has done has made the economy grow faster then had he done nothing, then Obama cannot rightfully take direct credit for the increase in tax revenues due to a recovering (as opposed to 'recovered') economy.

This is one of the weakest arguments one would dare to fall on (shows a level of desperateness). I mean, the Miami heat cannot be champions last year because we can't prove what would have happened had Russell Westbrook not tore his meniscus. Does your position suffer from such weakness you have to invoke Russell's teapot to counter a position?

 

[imagep]

Is this before or after the federal government bails out the health insurance companies losses?

I seriously doubt that is going to be the case for several reasons.

First, the Obamacare policies are market price policies, and are only a bargain if you are someone who gets a subsidized policy.

Secondly, a heck of a lot of insurance companies have used Obamacare as an opportunity to eliminate plans that operate at a loss or a low profit. With all the people claiming that their insurance went up significantly, I would imagine that insurance profits are going to skyrocket.

third, the cost of healthcare during the past few years has not been rising as fast as it did before Obama was in office, I have no idea why and I don't credit that to Obama, but with healthcare costs not increasing as fast, it's unlikely that insurance company profits are going to decrease.

 

[bubbabgone]

Okay, give MTAech 2009, and let's go from there. It's all Obama since then, no matter how they try to spin it. If they think they are fooling anyone but themselves, especially since Obama said he was concentrating on jobs every year since then, but unemployed people have risen to 92 million, and since there are over 50 million now on food stamps just to survive, and since Obama has increased the debt by $ 7 trillion dollars in the same period, you'd think we all should be better off...so maybe they should rethink their talking points. People believe what they see with their own eyes, unfortunately, and they ain't happy, judging from every poll that's been done! :2mad:

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:!

Quite right, Pol.
They're always being fed excuses for what the guy's done/doing to the Country and they'll repeat all of 'em.
They may be very nice people otherwise.

Getting caught in huge lies hasn't stopped some of his most severely enamored supporters you see here and elsewhere.

Did you see what Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said? You CAN keep your doctor if you want to pay more. Same damn thing Zeke Emanual said late last year on national TV.
Only buttboys, buttgirls, and fools would have the cubes to repeat that kind of folderol.

Just goes to show you there's no shortage of any of 'em.
Witness their reaction to the CBO "job-lock" report as additional evidence.

 

[imagep]

Although I agree that the conservatives backed the fantasy of expansionary austerity, I don't think there was lying involved. I think they honestly believe it. It's just wrong from an economics point of view.

Could have done more:

-- The stimulus should have been bigger
-- Was not really a fan of the payroll tax holiday
-- the stimulus should have had fewer tax-cuts and more spending
-- the federal government should have loaned the states money a zero interest rates until the slump was over.

I think thats true with the conservative "dittoheads", but maybe not so true with the conservative leadership.

The people in leadership positions aren't stupid. They realize that their best chance for staying in leadership positions is if our economy under Obama and the democratic control senate is if our economy is poor. The middle votes based on the economy more than anything else. Conservatives actually desire for us to have a poor economy right now, and are committed to making sure that it stays that way. So the conservative leadership promotes bad economic policy, and the followers buy into it.