2014 Deficit estimate down to 514 billion

[Deuce]

When you first run it through the ceiling, it's not a particularly large challenge to reduce it from that point.

Obama inherited a 1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and added 200 billion to it.

Although I'd point out that laying deficits solely at the feet of the president, or even congress, is a foolish notion.

 

[jonny5]

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

Again, the debt ceiling was actually used to force spending caps.

 

[jonny5]

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.

Its a law. And thus requires congress and the president to vote to increase it. As weve seen the last few years, this allows a party who opposes spending to use it as a tool to get reign in spending. Which is what actually happened

 

[Kushinator]

See the last part of comment #97

There is no point.

:doh

 

[Kushinator]

Again, the debt ceiling was actually used to force spending caps.

There is no debt ceiling. It is a meaningless obsession among a minority of the conservative base.

 

[Deuce]

Its a law. And thus requires congress and the president to vote to increase it. As weve seen the last few years, this allows a party who opposes spending to use it as a tool to get reign in spending. Which is what actually happened

"The party who opposing spending" is actually "the party not currently in power." Democrats were all up in arms about spending and debt until they took office, when suddenly the GOP went from literally saying deficits don't matter to flipping out about spending.

 

[imagep]

That assumption that Obama wants to perpetuate the USA as a Capitalist system and that his solutions reflect that.
Do you assume that?

My assumption is that at this point, I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates he is a socialist.

There are fewer government jobs today than there were when Obama took office. The nationalization of private companies (most noticeably GM) has been returned to the public sector. for the most part, we do not have socialized healthcare. I've really seen almost no march towards socialism.

A lot of capitalists believe that what may ultimately kill capitalism is excessive income disparity which would eventually lead to most all income and wealth accumulating in the hands of the few. A highly progressive income tax system would prevent that from happening by redistributing this wealth at about the same rate that it accumulates, so that all income classes (with the possible exception of those who refuse to work by choice) would grow in both income and wealth at about the same rate. It will take all income classes growing in income and wealth at about the same rate to maximize economic production, because otherwise, demand will lag behind potential demand and thus gdp will lag behind potential gdp.

We aren't far from the goal of all income classes increasing in prosperity at the same rate. In another thread someone posted some figures which indicated that during the past 30 something years the top 1% only gained income (or wealth, I don't remember which) at a rate of 0.15% faster than the mean average rate. I would think that if we lowered the bottom few income tax brackets to zero percent, and started charging the same tax rate for capital gains and inheritance as we do earned income, that we could eliminate the trend of increasing income disparity virtually overnight. thats not a huge deviation in tax scheme from where we are now. It's more like "fine tuning" our tax scheme than anything else.

 

[bubbabgone]

What's your point?

There is no point.

:doh

 

[a351]

Don't start with that personal ****.

:lol:

You can't use positive productivity as an assurance there's no looming recession right after you list productivity as only one among other componentsof a recession.

The definition of a recession is consecutive quarters worth of negative economic growth. A financial crisis historically encompasses substantial instability in the banking system, and often a credit crunch. The severity of the latter is generally much greater, as is the time to recover.

Fact is, there are other worrisome negative indicators right now ... productivity decline may or may not follow to make your picture complete.

As noted before, productivity decline is what is necessary to make the picture to begin with. An event we haven't approached in recent reports.

About a quarter of recessions have financial instability as a component.

Source please for that rather broad statement. Even so, the degree of instability in the most recent episode was markedly greater than any episode since the Depression.

It's Obama's ideologically founded solutions that killed the recovery and he's still at it.

Assertion heavy per usual.

 

[bubbabgone]

My assumption is that at this point, I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates he is a socialist.

A lot of capitalists believe that what may ultimately kill capitalism is excessive income disparity which would eventually lead to most all income and wealth accumulating in the hands of the few. A highly progressive income tax system would prevent that from happening by redistributing this wealth at about the same rate that it accumulates, so that all income classes (with the possible exception of those who refuse to work by choice) would grow in both income and wealth at about the same rate. It will take all income classes growing in income and wealth at about the same rate to maximize economic production, because otherwise, demand will lag behind potential demand and thus gdp will lag behind potential gdp.

We aren't far from the goal of all income classes increasing in prosperity at the same rate. In another thread someone posted some figures which indicated that during the past 30 something years the top 1% only gained income (or wealth, I don't remember which) at a rate of 0.15% faster than the mean average rate. I would think that if we lowered the bottom few income tax brackets to zero percent, and started charging the same tax rate for capital gains and inheritance as we do earned income, that we could eliminate the trend of increasing income disparity virtually overnight. thats not a huge deviation in tax scheme from where we are now. It's more like "fine tuning" our tax scheme than anything else.

Holy cow!!!!!

Would wanting a Single Payer Healthcare system indicate a Socialist proclivity.
Would advancing wealth distribution policies indicate a Socialist proclivity.

Whether you answer YES THEY WOULD or NO THEY WOULDN'T there's probably no need to continue ... but each for different reasons.

 

[imagep]

Holy cow!!!!!

Would wanting a Single Payer Healthcare system indicate a Socialist proclivity.

No, not really. Single payer would only be socialist if it involved all doctors being employed by the government. I've never heard of Obama promoting that, and I would oppose that if he did.

Single payer can be a private insurance system, similar to what we already have, except that the guberment pays for the insurance for every citizen. Regardless, he didn't demand a single payer system, he compromised with far less than that.

Would advancing wealth distribution policies indicate a Socialist proclivity.

No, not at all. Under socialism, the government would own the means of production. Believing in a more progressive income tax system doesn't equate to the government owning all businesses. What your are talking about is advancing a specific social system, not a socialist system.

 

[bubbabgone]

:lol:



The definition of a recession is consecutive quarters worth of negative economic growth. A financial crisis historically encompasses substantial instability in the banking system, and often a credit crunch. The severity of the latter is generally much greater, as is the time to recover.

As noted before, productivity decline is what is necessary to make the picture to begin with

. An event we haven't approached in recent reports.



Source please for that rather broad statement. Even so, the degree of instability in the most recent episode was markedly greater than any episode since the Depression.



Assertion heavy per usual.

Not true ... negative productivity may satisfy the commonly considered definition of a recession by a lot of people but ...
(1) not all recessions had 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, and
(2) there are other indicators that serve as warning signs even before considering growth, and
(3) the GDP has been far below normal recovery GDP anyway.

sooooo ... could it be ...

 

[Deuce]

Holy cow!!!!!

Would wanting a Single Payer Healthcare system indicate a Socialist proclivity.
Would advancing wealth distribution policies indicate a Socialist proclivity.

Whether you answer YES THEY WOULD or NO THEY WOULDN'T there's probably no need to continue ... but each for different reasons.

It is foolish to treat socialism as a binary. Edit: stupid autocorrect

 

[bubbabgone]

It is foolish to treat socialism as a binary. Edit: stupid autocorrect

?????

 

[Deuce]

?????

Single payer isn't inherently socialism, and progressive taxation doesn't fit the definition either. If collectively paying for healthcare is socialism, how about collectively paying for national defense? Look, everyone believes in socialism now

 

[bubbabgone]

Single payer isn't inherently socialism,

yes it is

and progressive taxation doesn't fit the definition either.

it's a form

If collectively paying for healthcare is socialism,

it can be

how about collectively paying for national defense?

logical fallacy ... straw man ... take yer pick

Look, everyone believes in socialism now

let's just say they've been made dependent in portions of their lives but that's no reason to keep expanding it.

12345

 

[CanadaJohn]

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.

I don't know the answers nor do I have data to back it up, but just anecdotally from news reports and sources, I'm inclined to believe that all three of your claims are wishful thinking.

1. Reports I've seen indicate that 80% and higher of all those who signed up in the exchanges were either directed into Medicaid or got government subsidies. That tells me that the cost to government is going to increase and that it's highly likely that many in the subsidized policies are going to be the "pre-existing condition" types who will drive expenditures higher.

2. Reports I've seen have indicated insurance companies have only dropped policies that don't meet Obamacare minimum coverage requirements. These policies, generally, had high deductibles and usually catastrophic coverage provisions rarely used - the basics were covered by the individual. With the new minimum requirements, it is likely insurance companies will be paying out or providing coverage they wouldn't have been prior to Obamacare.

3. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that would indicate "healthcare costs" aren't racing ever higher in every jurisdiction in the world, let alone the most expensive jurisdiction, the US. It's possible that expenditures on healthcare may be slowing, perhaps as a function of noted large increases in deductibles under new insurance policies under the Obamacare protocols, but that doesn't mean cost of services isn't rising as fast as ever. As for insurance company profits, if more people are pushed off the highest profit policies into policies they don't buy or can't afford - that's a loss. If new enrollees are put into subsidized policies and end up costing more to service than the policy premium generates - that's a loss. And if the promised requirement that low use, healthy, young citizens aren't signing up for policies - that's also a loss.

There's a reason the provisions are in the ACA requiring the federal government to bail out insurance companies if losses occur - it's because they were anticipated, at least in the short-term, and the insurance companies wouldn't have been on board otherwise. Obama and the Democrats sold you out, using your own money, for a piece of legislation they couldn't have gotten adopted otherwise.

 

[Eric7216]

And the Great Bush recession also started in 2007.


Hmmm.

Well, officially the recession started in December, 2007 and the 2007 Fiscal Year ended in September 30, 2007.
And the Democrats gained control of Congress in January, 2007.

Hmmmmm.

 

[Eric7216]

No, not really. Single payer would only be socialist if it involved all doctors being employed by the government. I've never heard of Obama promoting that, and I would oppose that if he did.

Single payer can be a private insurance system, similar to what we already have, except that the guberment pays for the insurance for every citizen. Regardless, he didn't demand a single payer system, he compromised with far less than that.



No, not at all. Under socialism, the government would own the means of production. Believing in a more progressive income tax system doesn't equate to the government owning all businesses. What your are talking about is advancing a specific social system, not a socialist system.

A cynic, which I am, would tend to believe that the US system needs campaign contributions to survive and a cynical politician, which I think Obama is, would know that by practicing corporate cronyism one can maximize campaign contributions. Now it may help to have all medical personnel work for the government or it may help to force citizens to buy a corporate product. Since many would oppose banning free enterprise in medical practice, this seems like a logical approach, for a cynical politician.

A better plan would simply to raise the Medicaid standards and raise payroll taxes to cover the increased enrollment by the people who can not approve medical insurance. And the people who can afford insurance but choose not to could simply pay as they go. And it they can't there should be meaningful penalties.

 

[joko104]

thank you President Obama for your wise policy of reducing the deficit prudently while maintaining positive GDP.

:lamo

Next you should post how a horrific heat wave hitting the Northeast proves the crisis of global warming.

 

[jmotivator]

Kudos to Obama for being unable to increase spending as much as he would have wanted, and letting the Republicans obstruct him into stopping spending growth. Sadly, the future is not so bright that I have to wear shades.

CBO

Exactly. The Democrats want to scream about all the spending that they couldn't do due to the "Party of no" and then want to take credit for declining deficits all while sitting of the longest recovery since the depression. What would Democrats be without their fantasies?

 

[imagep]

I don't know the answers nor do I have data to back it up, but...

In otherwords, you are a "low information voter".

 

[Vern]

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.

Hey before you change the subject I just want to make sure you now realize that:
A Bush did double the debt
B President Obama wont double the debt (unless republicans finally succeed in destroying the economy again)
C debt is measured by fiscal years not inauguration day and
D the discretionary budget didn't cause the deficits
because you don't seem to be 'discussing' that any more. Anyhoo, spending is measured as a % of GDP. It takes into account inflation and per capita. So, when one wants to compare spending from previous years, you have to use GDP.

Have you notice the cons here that insist on measuring spending on a nominal basis. Since you understand inflation, even you realize how ridiculous is for cons to pretend “its not a cut unless it’s a nominal cut”, right?

 

[Born Free]

Hey before you change the subject I just want to make sure you now realize that:
A Bush did double the debt
B President Obama wont double the debt (unless republicans finally succeed in destroying the economy again)
C debt is measured by fiscal years not inauguration day and
D the discretionary budget didn't cause the deficits
because you don't seem to be 'discussing' that any more. Anyhoo, spending is measured as a % of GDP. It takes into account inflation and per capita. So, when one wants to compare spending from previous years, you have to use GDP.

Have you notice the cons here that insist on measuring spending on a nominal basis. Since you understand inflation, even you realize how ridiculous is for cons to pretend “its not a cut unless it’s a nominal cut”, right?

let me put this another way, how much did Bush add to the national debt in 8 yrs vs Obama in 5.

 

[Eric7216]

Hey before you change the subject I just want to make sure you now realize that:
A Bush did double the debt
B President Obama wont double the debt (unless republicans finally succeed in destroying the economy again)
C debt is measured by fiscal years not inauguration day and
D the discretionary budget didn't cause the deficits
because you don't seem to be 'discussing' that any more. Anyhoo, spending is measured as a % of GDP. It takes into account inflation and per capita. So, when one wants to compare spending from previous years, you have to use GDP.

Have you notice the cons here that insist on measuring spending on a nominal basis. Since you understand inflation, even you realize how ridiculous is for cons to pretend “its not a cut unless it’s a nominal cut”, right?

I realize that you disagree but debt increased from $5.7T to $10.7T when Bush was President and increased to $17.3T so far under Obama.
I understand Fiscal Years going from Oct 1 to Sep 30 but I also understand that there are ongoing spending resolutions and budgets aren't followed. Sometimes Congress doesn't even pass a budget. You seem to think that the budget is carved in stone and followed to the "T".
The NBER states the recession ending in June, 2009. I understand lagging indicators.
I understand the present value of money and the reality of looking at deficits and debt as a percent of GDP. But one can also compare based on adjusted dollars. Hopefully, if our GDP doubles you won't want to double Defense spending.

I understand that the non-discretionary budgets are the major problem and Congress, Dems and Repubs, aren't able to deal with that.