CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion [W:383]

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Hank Paulson: Kneeling Before Pelosi - The Inside Job (usnews.com)

thank you. Now why did it take 3 posts for you to finally attempt to back up your assertion? seriously, your first two posts were totally ridulous. Did you post the wrong link by mistake? anyhoo, when I read the link that you think asserts your point I read this

"Actually, the Wall Street Journal's report said that it was really "a moment of levity in a rough day," rather than a display of humility."

mmmm, a moment of levity, mmmmm that doesn't back up your contention that "Treasury Secretary Paulson had to get on his knees to beg Pelosi to pass TARP rather than send the country into a depression solely for partisan reasons.". Do you realize that?

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

So...Obama signs a budget with a $400B increase in spending and presides over TARP, which was $200B and somehow only increased spending $200B. My 14 year old nephew is better at math than that...why arent you?

OC as documented in this thread (that means you don't get to wave your hands and pretend its not true), President Obama was handed a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.

Here's the estimates
________________1//7/09
Total Revenues____2,357
Total Outlays_____3,543

The spending estimate was revised up 450 billion and the revenue was revised down 450 billion. Lets look at the actuals, YES ACTUALS.

________________1//7/09___actuals
Total Revenues____2,357___ 2,105
Total Outlays_____3,543___ 3,518

notice that spending came in under the estimate but revenue collapsed another 250 billion. Now how does your version of reality about 600 billion in increased spending reconcile with the facts I've posted. Again, they are facts. You don't get to pretend they are not true. So how did spending go down from the estimate if President OBama added 600 billion? (remember, you've already tried the "discredit the link" excuse)

 

[upsideguy]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Dude. Defense has been the only department to actually be cut and tax increases have occurred already.

Let me know when Dems come to the table with entitlement cuts and social program reform. Looks to me like only reps are serious.

Sequestration cut many departments, with the DoD being one of them. Yes, Sequestration was to be "temporary" measure had congress been dumb enough to let it happen (and they were and it did). The issue now would be how to restructure those cuts amongst the discretionary budget, with permanent cuts to defense and other departments very much on the table.

Tax increases have not already incurred. The Bush era tax cuts (2001 and 2003) expired in 2011, but were extended to 2012, when they expired again. The negotiation around tax changes in 2012 dealt with making permanent certain of those tax cuts, which happened for most persons. The temporary enacted tax cuts for those with taxable incomes over 400K were not extended, but there were no tax increases. The problem is that the original intent of the 2001 tax cuts was "surplus reduction"... giving back to the American people a dividend from achieving surpluses. Of course the myth was there were no surpluses AND when you implement surplus reduction in a deficit you get bigger deficits, which is exactly what happened.

History lesson: Why the Bush tax cuts were enacted - The Washington Post

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

In the 1990's, when the budget was healthy, individual income tax revenue averaged 8.7% of GDP. Individual income tax revenues now average 7.4% of GDP. Had we maintained our tax rates at a consistent percentage of GDP, we would have collect $2T more in tax revenue (debt would be $2T less, or that is a crude cost of the tax cuts) and our current deficit would be $250B less (which would be just under 1/2 of our current running deficit).



Of course, this says nothing about Corporate incomes, which have declined to almost nil over the past 30 years. Cleaning up the corporate tax code could also add a ton to help deficit (and someday debt) reduction.



The real agenda of the Cons (since the ran all the real Republicans out of the party) is to undo the social contract of the 20th century. They are not interested in balancing the budget. The whole balanced budget discussion is a rouse. If they were really interested in balancing the budget, they would be opened for a balanced approach (which is the least painful and least risky way to accomplish the goal), which, of course, would include taxes.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

The budget expected to produce a shortfall of $200b before Obama became president. You can't put more than that on Obama since the expectation was the result of Bush's policies. That $1.2t expected shortfall was based on the budget under Bush. And the projections are not just based on spending but also of expected revenue.

Because most of that was already funded from 2008 and already factored into the CBO's forecast of the FY2009 budget. Obama's bill increased the spending of that $400b by 8% above what it was previously. So at most, you can attribute about $30b of it to Obama.

The $400B in increases were not going to be signed by Bush. They cannot be attributed to him and were not in ongoing resolutions because they began after Obama entered office. The remaining $200B comes from TARP---thats how I get $6B. Your incremental math ignores the point that Bush was not going to sign the pork spending the Dems wanted---Obama did sign it, the budget consequences, all of them, rest with him.

I see you are still posting Wikipedia links. anyhoo OC, I've posted them dozens of times. when are you going to learn I don't post things as fact because I really really really want them to be true. I'm not a conservative.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

CBO | Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

so whats your next attempt to wish away the facts or deflect.

Bolded is the asshattery and if you go back and look at my post, you will see I quoted that portion of your quote and attritbuted that statement to that portion of it. Because it IS random asshattery. Blah blah blah derp conservatives lie blah blah.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

The $400B in increases were not going to be signed by Bush. They cannot be attributed to him and were not in ongoing resolutions because they began after Obama entered office. The remaining $200B comes from TARP---thats how I get $6B. Your incremental math ignores the point that Bush was not going to sign the pork spending the Dems wanted---Obama did sign it, the budget consequences, all of them, rest with him.




Bolded is the asshattery and if you go back and look at my post, you will see I quoted that portion of your quote and attritbuted that statement to that portion of it. Because it IS random asshattery. Blah blah blah derp conservatives lie blah blah.

Obama Signs Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill

This week, President Obama signed an "omnibus" spending bill for the current fiscal year, which funds domestic programs and non-military international programs through September. At $410 billion, the measure provides growth of about eight percent over last year. Since the beginning of this fiscal year last October, most health, education, employment, public safety and other domestic programs were flat funded at last year's level, despite inflation and greatly increased demands on public agencies.

They were already funded, but that funding was set to expire. Obama renewed the funding and increased it 8%.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Bolded is the asshattery and if you go back and look at my post, you will see I quoted that portion of your quote and attritbuted that statement to that portion of it. Because it IS random asshattery. Blah blah blah derp conservatives lie blah blah.

OC, you think your Wikipedia links are better than the CBO links. You said "That the wiki leaks are the actual expenditure and revenues from the times in question and are just as valid, perhaps more so than budget figures. "

I posted ACTUALS, say it ACTUALS, from the CBO links. The CBO links are the source. You cant wish away those facts. Yet you did. You first challenged me for a link. then you waved your hand and pretended you didn't have to believe them. And I see you ignoring my post that shows your 600 billion in spending belonging to Obama is pure conservative fantasy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OC, you think your Wikipedia links are better than the CBO links. You said "That the wiki leaks are the actual expenditure and revenues from the times in question and are just as valid, perhaps more so than budget figures. "

I posted ACTUALS, say it ACTUALS, from the CBO links. The CBO links are the source. You cant wish away those facts. Yet you did. You first challenged me for a link. then you waved your hand and pretended you didn't have to believe them. And I see you ignoring my post that shows your 600 billion in spending belonging to Obama is pure conservative fantasy.

Lets get something straight from the get go. I asked you to provide links because I wanted to examine the data, if you were interested in honest debate you would provide them as a matter of course and not whine when asked to provide them. Thats courtesy--maybe you should try getting some.

What I quoted is totally partisan asshattery. Discuss the facts.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Lets get something straight from the get go. I asked you to provide links because I wanted to examine the data, if you were interested in honest debate you would provide them as a matter of course and not whine when asked to provide them. Thats courtesy--maybe you should try getting some.

What I quoted is totally partisan asshattery. Discuss the facts.

No OC, I happily posted them. See how you just cant ever tell the truth. I however didn't happily receive your deluded opinion that "the wiki leaks are the actual expenditure and revenues from the times in question and are just as valid, perhaps more so than budget figures. " That was just you pretending that I was posting estimates. And I see how you are still not addressing the facts.

If you're finished deflecting, please explain how 2009 spending could come in under the 3543 billion estimate if President Obama added 600 billion.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

No OC, I happily posted them. See how you just cant ever tell the truth. I however didn't happily receive your deluded opinion that "the wiki leaks are the actual expenditure and revenues from the times in question and are just as valid, perhaps more so than budget figures. " That was just you pretending that I was posting estimates. And I see how you are still not addressing the facts.

If you're finished deflecting, please explain how 2009 spending could come in under the 3543 billion estimate if President Obama added 600 billion.

Vern, if you happily posting them you would have included them in your post using them as a basis for the post.
Ill start addressing facts when you start posting some. If you could stop with the personal remarks that would be great.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Vern, if you happily posting them you would have included them in your post using them as a basis for the post.
Ill start addressing facts when you start posting some. If you could stop with the personal remarks that would be great.

I've posted them dozens of times. One con actually complained about me posting them. So now I only post them on request, happily.

Now read this slowly. You said "provide them as a matter of course and not whine when asked to provide them" . Not only is that a personal remark, its a lie as I happily posted them. The difference is I didn't whine and try to make the thread about my hurt feelings. I just pointed out it was a lie and continued with the thread.

When you are finished creating narratives to avoid the topic, I would love to hear how 2009 spending could come in under the 3543 billion estimate if President Obama added 600 billion

 

[sangha]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Vern, if you happily posting them you would have included them in your post using them as a basis for the post.
Ill start addressing facts when you start posting some. If you could stop with the personal remarks that would be great.

They're been posted several times

 

[Fenton]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

er uh dave, every president spends more than the previous president. Not every
president is handed an economy contracting at -8.9% and a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

And the "on paper" thing is hysterical. How will you flail at the facts when the deficit comes in close to that?

Hey VERN, TARP was part of that 1.4 Trillion, which Obama voted for.

Of course he should have Considering it was trial attorneys like himself that charged the banks with " redlining" and got the standards reduced in the first place.

That's of course with direct help of the Democrats in the 90s.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

They're been posted several times

Sangha say something about the thread or go troll another one.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

I've posted them dozens of times. One con actually complained about me posting them. So now I only post them on request, happily.

Now read this slowly. You said "provide them as a matter of course and not whine when asked to provide them" . Not only is that a personal remark, its a lie as I happily posted them. The difference is I didn't whine and try to make the thread about my hurt feelings. I just pointed out it was a lie and continued with the thread.

When you are finished creating narratives to avoid the topic, I would love to hear how 2009 spending could come in under the 3543 billion estimate if President Obama added 600 billion

TARP/Stimulus/ongoing budget resolution increases that Bush would not sign that WERE included in the CBO estimate.

 

[Fletch]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

no fletch. Boehner started the PR campaign in Sept 12 to try to make people think sequester belonged to President Obama. And republicans threw out all stops to say Obama was responsible for sequester. So again you have to ignore that republicans were not trying to take credit for the sequester. (read that slowly. republicans were not touting sequester. they were running from it)

I already explained this to you, but you are to thick headed to grasp it I suppose. Let my try one last time. Sequester was Obamas idea. It was designed to be something that both side would hate so much they would come to an overall budget agreement. Now, read this slowly--republicans oppose the sequester but support the idea of budget cuts. Obama and the democrats oppose the sequester and oppose budget cuts. The only way to get budget cuts was to enact the sequester that neither side really liked. Get it now?

Lets review
Republicans scream for years for budget cuts
Republicans frantically try to blame President Obama for sequester.
Republican base happily ignores the flaming hypocrisy.

See above.

Now for your standard of integrity. If you call President Obama warning of the possible negative effects of sequestration a lie, what you call a certain president saying a certain country had WMDs and helped al Qaeda on 9-11? Holy cow you must really be mad. especially since that certain president knew they didn't.

My integrity is just fine. If you have evidence Bush lied about WMD, lay it out there. But you don't.

 

[washunut]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

thank you. Now why did it take 3 posts for you to finally attempt to back up your assertion? seriously, your first two posts were totally ridulous. Did you post the wrong link by mistake? anyhoo, when I read the link that you think asserts your point I read this

"Actually, the Wall Street Journal's report said that it was really "a moment of levity in a rough day," rather than a display of humility."

mmmm, a moment of levity, mmmmm that doesn't back up your contention that "Treasury Secretary Paulson had to get on his knees to beg Pelosi to pass TARP rather than send the country into a depression solely for partisan reasons.". Do you realize that?

To answer your first question, I am not that good with doing the link think as you kids. So yes I messed that up at first.

While there may have been levity, if some people want to make that assertion, there was a lot of pushback from dems as well as republicans to doing the right thing, even if it not politically popular at the time and vote for TARP, the single piece of legislation that kept of from falling into a depression.

 

[sangha]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

TARP/Stimulus/ongoing budget resolution increases that Bush would not sign that WERE included in the CBO estimate.

bush* signed TARP.

How many lies are you going to post?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

bush* signed TARP.

How many lies are you going to post?

The ongoing budget resolutions were what I was referring to that he did not sign but that all three contributed the 600B number. TARP was administered by the Obama admin. Id say the spending is on him since he wants to claim the paybacks the following year.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

To answer your first question, I am not that good with doing the link think as you kids. So yes I messed that up at first.

While there may have been levity, if some people want to make that assertion, .

Stop. Your link made that assertion. You made the opposite assertion based on nothing. So you have not backed up your point. And now you cant because you could only post editorials from Newsmaxx or Human events.

, there was a lot of pushback from dems as well as republicans to doing the right thing, even if it not politically popular at the time and vote for TARP, the single piece of legislation that kept of from falling into a depression.

Now before we begin with this sad statement please remember how you misconstrued a clear statement about a moment of levity to fit your agenda. You are doing the same here. And now its been elevated to "the single piece of legislation that kept of from falling into a depression". that's hysterical. I remember the days when cons thought TARP and stimulus were the same thing.

Anyhoo, back to your factless, baseless, opinion about TARP. For some reason you think its important to highlight some dems and some republicans pushed back against tarp. Seems that republicans were doing most of the pushing. If it was the 'single piece' as you claimed with zero back up, then you must be pretty mad at the 108-90 vote by republicans in the house. Almost half of republicans in the house wanted to destroy America in 2008. Now its more than half.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Now, read this slowly--republicans oppose the sequester but support the idea of budget cuts. Obama and the democrats oppose the sequester and oppose budget cuts. The only way to get budget cuts was to enact the sequester that neither side really liked. Get it now?

mmmm, you are so close. Explain how pubs can scream for budget cuts for 4 years but didn't like sequester, a measley 85 billion in cuts. And if the effects were not going to be as bad as President Obama thought, why did they run away from the sequester? Why were they not trumpeting that they forced the sequester and should get all the credit for something they claimed they've wanted for 4 years? because they too were worried about the effects. Unless you got a better theory. And so far you don't.

FYI Fletch, you just cant twist and torture the facts enough to explain away the republican hypocrisy.

My integrity is just fine. If you have evidence Bush lied about WMD, lay it out there. But you don't.

First off fletch, you're basis of President Obama lying is that the effects of sequester weren't as bad as he thought. If the sequester not being as bad as thought is a lie, then I don't have to prove Bush lied. He was just wrong about WMDs and al Qaeda hence by your standards its a lie. Use the same standard.

But here's the best part, I can prove Bush lied. Can you prove President Obama lied?

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

TARP/Stimulus/ongoing budget resolution increases that Bush would not sign that WERE included in the CBO estimate.

Yet another magic fact from OC. The CBO estimate can only include actual legislation. The Budget Outlook did not include the Stimulus. But since OC needs to pretend it did, magic presto it did. OC cannot back that up in any way. If you've read any of his posts, he is now so positive what he said is true he doesn't have to back it up and any link that proves otherwise is simply ignored.

And the CBO Budget Outlook actually underestimated the UE and recessionary costs because they still did not grasp how bad the Great Bush Recession was. The first estimate of GDP was -3.8%. It came in at -8.9%.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Yet another magic fact from OC. The CBO estimate can only include actual legislation. The Budget Outlook did not include the Stimulus. But since OC needs to pretend it did, magic presto it did. OC cannot back that up in any way. If you've read any of his posts, he is now so positive what he said is true he doesn't have to back it up and any link that proves otherwise is simply ignored.

And the CBO Budget Outlook actually underestimated the UE and recessionary costs because they still did not grasp how bad the Great Bush Recession was. The first estimate of GDP was -3.8%. It came in at -8.9%.

First, it was -8.9 for one quarter. I think it was 5% for the year.

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post
3 pinnochios. Obama had a major role in setting the 2009 budget.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

. I think it was 5% for the year.
.

Wow OC, you've learned to stop stating delusion as fact. But why not find out what it was instead of posting what you think? Because the facts dont support your agenda of fighting the facts.

Obama had a major role in setting the 2009 budget.

er uh OC, you made the false statement that the CBO budget estimate included the Stimulus. The editorial from Glenn in no way substantiates that false statement. Lets face it, you made that statement up and can only try to deflect from it.

and fyi, that's not Fact Check. Its an editorial that calls itself a fact checker. Glenn makes this statement not Fact Check.

"So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president. "

He literally takes out 250 billion out of 2009 budget for TARP on the theory it would have been spent anyway. Lets examine why that's a false analogy besides the fact that Bush's policies necessitated TARP. If President Obama had not signed the 400 billion Omnibus, the govt would have shut down. No matter who was president, that 400 billion would have been spent. I dont know that McCain would have continued spending TARP or used it to bail out GM. And regardless of the assumption, it doesn't magically come out of the total.

Lets review some more false statements from Glenn


" Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)"

That statement proves Glenn is a liar. He knew exactly what the 140 billion was. To pretend he had no idea is just a typical conservative tactic.

Oh OC, dont forget we are still waiting for you to back up your statement that the CBO estimate had the stimulus in it.

 

[Vern]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

more dishonesty from Glenn.

"
One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
"

Now why didn't he clearly state 2012 and 2013 were estimates? my goodness. 2012 came in at 22.8% GDP and 2013 will come in around 22%. So not only is he magically removing 250 billion in TARP from Bush's total he uses estimates to inflate President Obama's spending.

Anyhoo cons, remember this statement when you foolishly claim that Britain or Spain or President Obama hasn't cut spending

"One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending"

Oh OC, dont forget we are still waiting for you to back up your statement that the CBO estimate had the stimulus in it.

 

[washunut]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Stop. Your link made that assertion. You made the opposite assertion based on nothing. So you have not backed up your point. And now you cant because you could only post editorials from Newsmaxx or Human events.



Now before we begin with this sad statement please remember how you misconstrued a clear statement about a moment of levity to fit your agenda. You are doing the same here. And now its been elevated to "the single piece of legislation that kept of from falling into a depression". that's hysterical. I remember the days when cons thought TARP and stimulus were the same thing.

Anyhoo, back to your factless, baseless, opinion about TARP. For some reason you think its important to highlight some dems and some republicans pushed back against tarp. Seems that republicans were doing most of the pushing. If it was the 'single piece' as you claimed with zero back up, then you must be pretty mad at the 108-90 vote by republicans in the house. Almost half of republicans in the house wanted to destroy America in 2008. Now its more than half.

I now understand you are a partisan knucklehead, but please remember I am a registered democrat for over four decades and have voted that way with few exceptions. So no, I am not mad that Republicans voted the way they did, I think they are knuckleheads also.

Anyhoo, the big difference is I have no problem calling out a partisan democrat who makes silly statements ( check mirror please) or a partisan Republican who does the same.