White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

[Goobieman]

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

WASHINGTON – New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 — a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.

The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.

While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current year, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink — that's 37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent — is looking worse. It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues.

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit - Yahoo! News

But, wait for this little gem...

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."

Do ya thnik?

At some point, even the most die-hard liberal has to take The Obama to task on this.

 

[Your Star]

Cutting the deficit would be an easier task if we weren't in this huge recession. We need to increase our GDP, and increasing government spending is a good way to increase it. Once we are out of this recession then by all means, cut spending. We need too reduce the deficit. Just depends on what programs we remove funding from.

 

[Goobieman]

Cutting the deficit would be an easier task if we weren't in this huge recession.

Cutting deficits is easy.
Simply don't spend the money.

We need to increase our GDP, and increasing government spending is a good way to increase it.

Ah... lets create a HUGE long term problem in order to (supposedly) create a short-term gain.
Excellent idea.

Where is that short-term gain, BTW?

 

[mike2810]

Cutting the deficit would be an easier task if we weren't in this huge recession. We need to increase our GDP, and increasing government spending is a good way to increase it. Once we are out of this recession then by all means, cut spending. We need too reduce the deficit. Just depends on what programs we remove funding from.

I would prefer the GDP be driven by the private sector. When will the madness stop on govt. spending. The govt. is spending money we don't have. Stop the wars, stop aid to other countries, cut entitlements, do something so my grandchildren can have a life.

I thought Congress was going back to "pay as you go", except for bailouts, unemployement extensions, etc. Many would not like it, but give me a red pencil and I can find ways to reduce the amount of govt. spending.

 

[Your Star]

Cutting deficits is easy.
Simply don't spend the money.

Well you have to decide what programs are necessary, and which ones are not, and how much money do you take away from said programs.


[/QUOTE]Ah... lets create a HUGE long term problem in order to (supposedly) create a short-term gain.
Excellent idea.

Where is that short-term gain, BTW?[/QUOTE]

We need to get out of this recession before we can tackle the deficit. Cutting government spending won't get us out of the recession, increasing government spending will.

 

[The Dane]

The last President to balance the budget was Clinton.

 

[TurtleDude]

Cutting deficits is easy.
Simply don't spend the money.


Ah... lets create a HUGE long term problem in order to (supposedly) create a short-term gain.
Excellent idea.

Where is that short-term gain, BTW?

cut off payments to people who sit on a computer all day whining about the rich not paying enough taxes while they, themselves, continue to get handouts from us net tax payers.

 

[TurtleDude]

The last President to balance the budget was Clinton.

yeah that dot com bubble was fortuitious

 

[NolaMan]

Well you have to decide what programs are necessary, and which ones are not, and how much money do you take away from said programs.

We need to get out of this recession before we can tackle the deficit. Cutting government spending won't get us out of the recession, increasing government spending will.

This is just more of the typical Keynesian line, but ignores the fact that Keynesianism has historically failed, and that the massive spending we have already undergone has failed as well. More of it will lead to nothing more than more failure.

 

[The Dane]

yeah that dot com bubble was fortuitious

Yeah where did that nice big surplus that Clinton left for us go?

 

[Deuce]

Yeah where did that nice big surplus that Clinton left for us go?

It never existed, really. It was a projected surplus. It vanished when the economy tanked, and along with it the tax revenues.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

There is a simple way out of this fiscal crisis:

President Obama announces to the world that there is only one China.

The Chinese would pay TRILLIONS to hear that! :lol:

 

[The Dane]

It never existed, really. It was a projected surplus. It vanished when the economy tanked, and along with it the tax revenues.

there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Cutting the deficit would be an easier task if we weren't in this huge recession. We need to increase our GDP, and increasing government spending is a good way to increase it. Once we are out of this recession then by all means, cut spending. We need too reduce the deficit. Just depends on what programs we remove funding from.

We need to cut the deficit and inspire confidence in the stability and good credit of the United States government, as the best means of growing the economy, and the only practical way to cut the deficit is the cut the spending. Cutting the spending by ummm...1.5 trillion dollars would do the trick nicely.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well you have to decide what programs are necessary, and which ones are not, and how much money do you take away from said programs.

That's easy.

Some people already figured that one out.

They wrote a Constitution for the United States to define the necessary spending.

No social entitlement or welfare program is allowed by the Constitution, nor is any federal spending for education, broadcasting, agriculture or industry subsidies, etc.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The last President to balance the budget was Clinton.

Nope. Only if you allow criminal accounting scams to hide expenses.

Clinton never had a balanced budget in front of him.

Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

We need to cut the deficit and inspire confidence in the stability and good credit of the United States government, as the best means of growing the economy, and the only practical way to cut the deficit is the cut the spending. Cutting the spending by ummm...1.5 trillion dollars would do the trick nicely.

Which, of course, will never happen. While I'm sure both sides can put a good face on saying we need to be fiscally responsible, both sides want to cut different things.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.

Which is what we say when we don't want to give the President credit for something, whereas when we do all we hear about is the President.

We've set up the President as our national strawman, and have for decades now.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Which is what we say when we don't want to give the President credit for something, whereas when we do all we hear about is the President.

We've set up the President as our national strawman, and have for decades now.

Actually, I give Congress the blame for everything it does wrong, and the President the blame for everything he does wrong, and since it's been 22 years since we've had a president that did anything right, and since we've never had a congress that's ever done anything right, I'm not that concerned about giving "credit".

22 years does count as "decades".

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Actually, I give Congress the blame for everything it does wrong, and the President the blame for everything he does wrong, and since it's been 22 years since we've had a president that did anything right, and since we've never had a congress that's ever done anything right, I'm not that concerned about giving "credit".

22 years does count as "decades".

Without addressing your absurd generalizations, the fact is that what I said matches the way the general public views and responds to the Presidency.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Without addressing your absurd generalizations, the fact is that what I said matches the way the general public views and responds to the Presidency.

Well, I'm sure you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and understand that, in many respects, the President's purpose is to take attention away from the true masters of the country, the bankers.

And you've always provided an argument for limiting the franchise to a less general population.

At a minimum, only people who can read should be able to vote, and of that group, only people who work and pay taxes.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Well, I'm sure you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and understand that, in many respects, the President's purpose is to take attention away from the true masters of the country, the bankers.

Like I said, he's the national strawman.

And you've always provided an argument for limiting the franchise to a less general population.

Wait, wiat, I have? :lol:

At a minimum, only people who can read should be able to vote

Given the number of illiterate students graduating high school these days, I think the solution is better education, not disenfranchisement.

and of that group, only people who work and pay taxes.

That's absurd.

Even those who don't pay taxes spend what money they have in ways that are taxed.

Also, how the hell do you know who is and is not working? We've already seen that the federal government is utterly incapable of figuring out just how many of us don't have jobs.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Wait, wiat, I have? :lol:

Just guessin'

Given the number of illiterate students graduating high school these days, I think the solution is better education, not disenfranchisement.

I think the disenfranchisement of people too lazyto learn how to read will give an additional incentive to students to learn.

That's absurd.

Even those who don't pay taxes spend what money they have in ways that are taxed.

So? They're not producing, they're tapeworms. Tapeworms shouldn't be allowed to tell the body what it should eat.

That's just common sense.

Also, how the hell do you know who is and is not working? We've already seen that the federal government is utterly incapable of figuring out just how many of us don't have jobs.

I don't know.

But the IRS does.

Fancy that.

Most precisely, the IRS knows who reports income that's taxed, and we can forget about the semantics of the word "working".

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Just guessin'

Just lyin', more like.

I think the disenfranchisement of people too lazyto learn how to read will give an additional incentive to students to learn.

What about people with learning disorders? How about the blind or legally blind? How about those in areas so poor that literacy takes a back seat to survival?

So? They're not producing, they're tapeworms. Tapeworms shouldn't be allowed to tell the body what it should eat.

You can produce without paying taxes and without breaking the law, so don't give me that tapeworm bull****.

I don't know.

But the IRS does.

Fancy that.

:lol: No, it's more like the IRS wishes this were true.

Most precisely, the IRS knows who reports income that's taxed, and we can forget about the semantics of the word "working".

This whole line of thought is moot, anyway.

Restricting voting rights based on whether or not you pay taxes is explicitly unConstitutional, anyhow.


TED,
Directing your attention to the 14th and 24th Amendments, and to Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.

 

[Goobieman]

Well you have to decide what programs are necessary, and which ones are not, and how much money do you take away from said programs.

Ok. And? That's easy enough.

We need to get out of this recession before we can tackle the deficit. Cutting government spending won't get us out of the recession, increasing government spending will

You didn't answer the question.
Where is the (short term) benefit from the several trillion dollars The Obama has added to the debt?