$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._go_pr_wh/obama_budget

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.

But without referencing the figures, Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.

"What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term," Obama said. "That's why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That's why it enhances America's competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy."

Many Democrats were already uncomfortable with Obama's budget, which promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.

The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says that the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House.

The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.

The CBO's estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.

By the end of the decade, the deficit under Obama's blueprint would go back up to $1.2 trillion.

Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle ? George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits ? and if the economy outperforms CBO's expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller

Democrats in Congress are readying Obama's budget for preliminary votes next week, and they promise to cut the deficit in half within five years.

Democrats are likely to curb somewhat Obama's request for a 9 percent increase in non-defense agency budgets.

Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit.

Republicans say Obama's budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they've been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.

The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.



What a surprise. You request 9% increases in budgets when the economy is shrinking by 5%, and what do you end up with?

I guess we're expecting an alien invasion of $250k income taxpayers.

 

newnameman

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,219
0
0
"Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut." :laugh:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
This is disappointing. Cue the apologists in here to say the following.

1. It is needed
2. Bush's fault
3. What would you do?!?!?!?
4. At least this is spent on good things
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I feel the numbers you mention are more accurate than Obama's. The deficits Bush rang up were egregious and deserving of condemnation, and I did as did many others, but these new ones are a totally new beast. I don't even think the government cares anymore. The national debt is very aggressively approaching 100% of GDP. Once it smashes through that, it will merely continue on up, up, and away. We are seeing a maxed out credit card having its monthly payments covered by a desperate plea to another company for another credit card, to play them against each other.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Bring it on, take on UHC, US defaults, have a revolution, everything resets to zero.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
"" ... George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits .... ""

Flawed like this Wing Nut circle-jerk.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
"" ... George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits .... ""

Flawed like this Wing Nut circle-jerk.

Expecting a stock bubble to last forever was flawed. Likewise expecting this shitfest of an economy to last forever is also flawed. So it could be we only see 750 billion\year deficit spending from Obama!
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

Tell me something, lefties, if green shit and healthcare is such a great investment, why is the projected 2019 deficit higher than any of Bush's deficits?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

FAIL.
He began in 2001, AFAIK.

So in other words, the economy was shrinking when Bush came into office.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
so clueless....winnar, I have to ask - how old are you? Do you have any concept of what GDP even means? So government spending under Bush was good, and under Obama it's bad?

I'll admit these deficit numbers don't look promising, but what exactly would you propose to get us out of the economic mess we are in? Do you think these problems just started two months ago?

JS - good luck with that revolution, go back to your compound
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

FAIL.
He began in 2001, AFAIK.

Are you slow or something? That translates into Bush inheriting a faultering economy.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
so clueless....winnar, I have to ask - how old are you? Do you have any concept of what GDP even means? So government spending under Bush was good, and under Obama it's bad?

I'll admit these deficit numbers don't look promising, but what exactly would you propose to get us out of the economic mess we are in? Do you think these problems just started two months ago?

JS - good luck with that revolution, go back to your compound

1. It is needed
2. Bush's fault
3. What would you do?!?!?!?
4. At least this is spent on good things


:laugh:
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

FAIL.
He began in 2001, AFAIK.

Are you slow or something? That translates into Bush inheriting a faultering economy.
His was much better, though. It wasn't a complete clusterfvck like Obama has inherited.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

FAIL.
He began in 2001, AFAIK.

Are you slow or something? That translates into Bush inheriting a faultering economy.
His was much better, though. It wasn't a complete clusterfvck like Obama has inherited.

I will give you what he inherited wasnt in the same position. But it was clearly not growing which was my point.
The person I responded to insinuated the economy was growing when Bush inherited it which is false. It was faultering and took a shit in March of 01 and really took a hit on 9-11 and the subsequent accounting scandals from corps like Enron.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
The Washington Post just posted a similar story.

U.S. Federal Deficit Soars Past Previous Estimates

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 20, 2009; 2:20 PM


Deteriorating economic conditions will cause the federal deficit to soar past $1.8 trillion this year and leave the nation wallowing in a sea of red ink far deeper than the White House had previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said today.

In a new report that provides the first independent analysis of President Obama's budget request, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that the administration's agenda would generate deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade -- $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his spending plan just one month ago.

And although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that the nation's annual operating deficit would never drop below 4 percent of the overall economy over the next decade, a level administration officials have said is unsustainable because the national debt would grow too rapidly.

By the CBO's estimate, for example, the nation's debt would grow to 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 under Obama's policies, compared with a pre-recession average of 40 percent.

The new report could complicate efforts to win congressional approval for Obama's $3.6 trillion budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Democrats in the House and Senate are currently putting the finishing touches on their versions of Obama's spending plan, which calls for an expensive expansion of health coverage for the uninsured and new spending on education programs, as well as a first-time tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

Democrats hope to approve the measure before the Easter recess.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said the gloomier CBO forecast would require "adjustments" to Obama's budget, though he declined to specify what changes would be necessary. To reduce the deficits, Democrats could dial back Obama's spending plans or find new sources of revenue.

After meeting with Obama at the White House this week, Conrad said the president "understands the legislative process" and that "it's going to require everyone to make adjustments."

But other Democrats are not necessarily ready to follow Conrad's lead. At her weekly news conference on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the expectation of bad news from CBO, the official budget scorekeeper for Capitol Hill, saying differences between that agency and the White House budget office are "not unusual."

"Our priorities are the same," Pelosi said. "This budget is a statement of our values and our investments in education, health care and the health of America. That includes prevention as well as care, and the energy initiatives as well as tax relief for 95 percent of the American people, as well as an approach that takes the deficit down. Those are the priorities of the budget."

White House budget director Peter Orszag made the same point after speaking with reporters on Tuesday.

"There are always some adjustments," Orszag said of the legislative budget process. "But those four pillars" -- health care, education, clean energy and deficit reduction -- "will be represented."

Bad news for sure, but Speaker Pelosi still wants to keep her head in the sand! She's the Left's answer to Newt Gingrich.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I feel the numbers you mention are more accurate than Obama's. The deficits Bush rang up were egregious and deserving of condemnation, and I did as did many others, but these new ones are a totally new beast. I don't even think the government cares anymore.

If the people (who elect the gov't) don't care, then obviously, the gov't won't care either. The average voter doesn't care one bit whether the country goes bankrupt in 50 years - they just want to get bailed-out on their McMansion they couldn't afford. We've all got a little Madoff in us, really, since we're happy to fleece future generations.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
It is actually interesting we(coworkers and I) were talking about this this morning. And how the projections for Obama's budget were most likely bunk due to deteriorating economic conditions. It would most likely be closer to 2 trillion out of the gate. Then these stories pop up.

Really does make you wonder will it will end. Guns and Butter will be in hot demand. Smith and Wesson stock up 500% I heard.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,645
9,949
136
Originally posted by: Mursilis
We've all got a little Madoff in us, really, since we're happy to fleece future generations.

Strange thing is, he's in jail while we roam free.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is actually interesting we(coworkers and I) were talking about this this morning. And how the projections for Obama's budget were most likely bunk due to deteriorating economic conditions. It would most likely be closer to 2 trillion out of the gate. Then these stories pop up.

Really does make you wonder will it will end. Guns and Butter will be in hot demand. Smith and Wesson stock up 500% I heard.

I sincerely hope butter doesn't increase, we've got enough fat people destroying our healthcare system.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is actually interesting we(coworkers and I) were talking about this this morning. And how the projections for Obama's budget were most likely bunk due to deteriorating economic conditions. It would most likely be closer to 2 trillion out of the gate. Then these stories pop up.

Really does make you wonder will it will end. Guns and Butter will be in hot demand. Smith and Wesson stock up 500% I heard.

I sincerely hope butter doesn't increase, we've got enough fat people destroying our healthcare system.

Butter is a metaphor for food ;)