They aren't meant to be right, they are meant to be objective guesses. The CBO was created so that parties wouldn't just make up BS numbers to sell their legislation. The CBO score isn't considered absolutely correct, but it is at least objective.
Sure budgets will change over time. However, the point of both the OP and post #5 is fear. Both do the same thing in the right way for those who support their ideology and want someone else in the White House: The instill fear that this country will never get its fiscal house in order AND that this President wants nothing more than to keep spending. But the fact is Pres. Obama's long-term ecomic plan as outlined by the CBO does make a decent effort of brining the deficit under control over the next 10 years.
Obama promised a net spending cut. As you have figured out by now, no President can stand by their plan. Romney will get into office, and his advisors will lay it down for him like they did with Clinton and he'll make it work. There's nothing in Romney's history that indicates a guy who is going to just live with big deficits.
That's mistaken. Some liberal blogs have compared Ryan's budget to the CBO baseline. But that's a bad measurement because no one actually supports the CBO baseline, which assumes that all the Bush tax cuts expire this year and payments to doctors under Medicare drop in accordance with the sustainable growth policy.
The correct comparison is with the current policy baseline, or better yet, the Obama budget. Compared to those, it cuts the deficit more:
James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com
5) Those savings – 2.4 percent for Obama, 3.5 percent for Ryan — are over ten years vs. cumulative GDP of $196 trillion over 2012-2021 (not counting interest expense). In dollar amounts, that works to savings of $4.7 trillion for Obama and $6.9 trillion for Ryan. So the Ryan Path saves $2.2 trillion more.
6) But that’s not all! The Obama Framework likely uses the same higher growth assumptions as Obama’s February budget. When CBO re-ran that budget using its own gloomier forecast, it found the Obama plan raised $1.7 trillion less than it claimed. Ryan uses the CBO numbers. So a back-of-the-envelope estimate — adjusted for similar economic assumptions — finds the Obama Framework would only save $3 trillion vs. $6.9 trillion for the Ryan Path over ten years. And nearly 2/3 of Obama’s savings comes from higher taxes (net interest)
Everyone does. But spending increased only 3% per year, which meant spending grew slower than the economy. Romney supports the Ryan budget, which increases spending 2.8% per year.
Mainly because Democrats keep accusing them of doing it while Republicans claim to want to do it. Of course the reality is different, but both parties think it's in their interest to portray Republicans as budget cutters.
However, at least since the Tea Party started pulling the strings, the Republicans have actually been good at stopping new spending. Romney's plan doesn't add up, but then Presidential plans almost never do. He'll have to choose his priorities.
1) Everyone does not know that Clinton increased spending every year. I corrected a liberal on that very fact just a few days ago on this site.
2) With deficits running well over a trillion dollars , ANY increase is spending is - IMO - absolutely pathetic.
The US federal budget is almost double what it was 10 years ago - spending is TOTALLY out of control.
Not enough revenue is not the problem...pathetic politicians (on both sides) with NO sense of fiscal responsibility are.
Clinton paid for his spending increases unlike all the Republicans who simply raised the deficit instead.
Revenue at 15% of GDP IS the problem. We have spent at least 20% of GDP every year for the last 20. It is usustainable.
Spending has doubled since FY 2001 - and you say the problem is not enough revenue?
Whatever.
Have a nice day.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - ForbesWho Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budge increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
•In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
•In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
•Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
If you mean defense spending, you are right. It has doubled since 911.
Here's the Obama "spending cuts" in a nutshell...
Step 1: Propose $1 trillion in spending hikes.
Step 2: Pass a law reducing "spending" within that time frame by $100MM
Step 3: Puff out your chest, and brag that you lowered spending by $100MM
Step 4: Confuse the voters by thinking your $900MM in hikes really is $100MM in cuts.
I said 'spending', not 'defense spending' (though that is WAY out of hand as well).
Spending has doubled in TOTAL since FY 2001.
And it has tripled since FY 1990.
Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays
Even though inflation has gone up a fraction of that since 1990.
Spending is out of control and both parties are to blame.
Even more telling is a comparison of Romney's plan that increases defense spending while cutting his taxes even more. Plus the repeal of AHC that will cost another trillion. He's on track with the other Republicans for further massve deficit increases. This chart shows it quite clearly. How the GOP has a reputaion for cutting spending is beyond reason.
Fiscally responsible Republicans have cut the deficits and the debt over time... and if you go back and do this same type of chart by party affiliation of the Senate and Congress, you could get an eye opener on who effects the budgetary situation in what manner...
Please save the partisan political rap for someone else...it bores me to death (from both sides).As you can see from this chart it is DEFENSE spending that has had the greatest increase since 2001. It's ironic that the House and certain people on this board all want even more defense spending. It sort of blows their cover don't you think? The want to cut programs they don't like and it has nothing to do with saving money.
Hate to break it to you... Your graph is off by a couple years... Sorry...
Then again, you should've notices, when both the WWII debt spike on your graph occurs after the war is over... And when the massive spike for the current debt you have all on Bush and none on Obama... Cute how that works...
See, the other indicator would've been that you have Bush leaving office with the debt to GDP ratio of around 90%... when it was actually well below that when Bush left office... At the worst case scenario the debt was $10.5T, and the GDP was $14T... making it 75%... just "slightly" off by 15% points... no biggie...
See here it is in nominal dollars...
Massive spike under Obama... which you tried to hide as nominal only, as if inflation from 2009-2009 was the major cause of the spike... not the massive spending, and the craterous deficit which was created...
Here it is in Debt to GDP ratio, more accurately than what you have here...
See where the massive spike in Debt to GDP ratio also occurs... Under Obama... largely because of his increases to Bush's last budget... from $2.7T to $3.1T
Then, unfortunately what these graphs don't show, is in the following years, when he increases that $3.1T to $3.6T, $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T, how the Debt to GDP ratio goes over 100% again for only the 2nd time in our nation's history...
It's not so much that the Republicans have a history of cutting... there has clearly been a mixed bag... However, what has been shown is that Democrats throw money around like it doesn't actually have a value in times of crisis... and that has lead to several severe explosions of our debt... for WWI, the depression, WII, and now Obama's decision to "stimulate" the economy, by making it dependent on grant money...
Fiscally responsible Republicans have cut the deficits and the debt over time... and if you go back and do this same type of chart by party affiliation of the Senate and Congress, you could get an eye opener on who effects the budgetary situation in what manner...
Romneycare is hardly fiscally responsible.
Wow, my head is spinning from that yarn, the Democrats caused WWII? This chart gives a clearer picture of who caused most of our debt.
Dago, Clinton didn't need to pay for his spending increases because the economy grew faster than spending. I agree that 15% of GDP revenue is not sustainable, but to get back to 18% quickly you'd need to repeal all the Bush and Obama tax cuts(like the payroll tax cut). And even if we get back to 18% revenue, there's still the small matter of spending being 24% of GDP.
So by a 2-1 margin, we do have a spending problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?