A graph really says it - 2009 - 2019 deficit projections

[alchemize]

2009-2019 CBO projected deficits

Of course they are much higher than the white house says. So much for Obama's transparency.

It's boggling that there are people defending this - and even saying not enough is being spent. I think as a country we'll never learn until the bubbles get so big that we truly go through a true collapse. Since no politicians on either side have the stones to truly face this issue, the only way out of this is to inflate the debt away, which will be a different economic disaster. Funny, a way to hedge against inflation is real estate....

 

[bamacre]

It looks horrible even if the WH numbers are correct.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize
2009-2019 CBO projected deficits

Of course they are much higher than the white house says. So much for Obama's transparency.

It's boggling that there are people defending this - and even saying not enough is being spent. I think as a country we'll never learn until the bubbles get so big that we truly go through a true collapse. Since no politicians on either side have the stones to truly face this issue, the only way out of this is to inflate the debt away, which will be a different economic disaster. Funny, a way to hedge against inflation is real estate....

A lot can happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

 

[DealMonkey]

The CBO doesn't have the best track record for accurate projections either:

Back in 2001, the CBO projected a $5.6 trillion budget surplus, and $3.1 trillion on-budget surpluses for the next 10 years. What happened? Then-President Bush used the figures to push aggressive tax cuts, and the projected surplus turned out to be a fantasy.

In January of 2002, the CBO projected a deficit of 21 billion-- a big swing from the surplus predicted a year before-- but the actual deficit was $158 billlion. At the time, President Bush announced in his State of the Union Address, that "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." Six years later, we the people are looking at ongoing budget deficits that are now the greatest the country has had in 50 years.

The CBO doesn't have a good track record for making such predictions, they have only been issuing these types of reports since 1981 and there simply isn't enough historical data to make accurate projections. In 2003 and 2004 the office fell short again in estimating projected deficits, repeating a pattern of over- and underestimating both deficits and surpluses demonstrated ever since the office was created, back in 1974.

Looking at more recent numbers, in January 2007 the CBO forecast GDP growth of 2.3, 3% in 2008, and 2.9% each year after that, until 2012. The CBO "assumed" that the housing decline would stop, that the economy would not be thrown into a recession, and that gas prices would remain low. Wrong on all counts.

Maybe Director Elmendorf should ask Nancy Reagan for the phone number of her astrologer.

Link

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

 

[winnar111]

Government spending of 41.3% of GDP in 2010, according to the Messiah and his people. The next highest over the last 30 years is 37.5% in 1991, not even counting 2009.


Change!


Between 2000 and 2008, real Government outlays increased at a 3.6 percent annual average rate. He whines about this and then turns around and increases shit by 12%

 

[alchemize]

I guess this is going to blow the whole "D's are more fiscally responsible than R's Graph" all to shit...

edit: better graph:

Link

 

[Genx87]

Completely and utterly scary. Considering in 2018 the true shit starts hitting the fan with entitlements from SS running deficits.

 

[Slew Foot]

See the sig

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

Looking at this chart 100 billion is chump change. While I agree it shouldnt be as bad as it looks because an uptick in the economy can help. I dont see it touching Bush deficits even with a strong economy. And that is saying something!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

 

[JSt0rm]

isn't part of the reason the deficit is so big because Obama chose to include the wars in the budget?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

Looking at this chart 100 billion is chump change. While I agree it shouldnt be as bad as it looks because an uptick in the economy can help. I dont see it touching Bush deficits even with a strong economy. And that is saying something!

This already assumes stronger economic growth than many believe will happen. I personally don't see consumer spending returning to historic levels for many, many years.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
isn't part of the reason the deficit is so big because Obama chose to include the wars in the budget?

No, those numbers are included in CBO's actual numbers.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

I can't remember the last time any program got cut to the tune of $100B. Space station? Supercollider? Anyone? Yes, theoretically, Obama could go at the budget with an axe, and <poof>, deficits gone, but we both know that won't happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

 

[JSt0rm]

so how much of those numbers for 09 have to do with bailouts/tarps and all that shit? I guess the question is do they break it down more then that?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

Ahh, so they assume policy is exactly what it is now and make there projections on that. I agree that wouldn't be accurate.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

Has BHO established any policies that will actually save money as opposed to spend it?
As far as I can tell , the only way the deficit is getting closed is by increased tax revenues
from inflated dollars.

 

[StageLeft]

LOL, it's completely horrific.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

Ahh, so they assume policy is exactly what it is now and make there projections on that. I agree that wouldn't be accurate.

Haha, qft.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection 🙂

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

Has BHO established any policies that will actually save money as opposed to spend it?
As far as I can tell , the only way the deficit is getting closed is by increased tax revenues
from inflated dollars.

I thought taxes were indexed to inflation?
Although, the alternative minimum income tax isn't.


Just wanted to mention how much I love you guys and this board. You all make finding the important articles easy, and the discussion is bar none some of the best.

 

[DealMonkey]

And do I need to even mention that Obama's budget proposal is just that - a proposal. Congress may end up producing something similar, but who knows? Maybe they'll cede some spending to appease the GOP?

I mean, just take a look at this article:

Democrats to Take a Knife to Obama's Budget
Amid mounting concern about the deficit, the heads of the two budget-writing committees plan to take a knife to President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.

WASHINGTON -- Twin congressional budget panels are considering their responses to President Barack Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan for 2010 as Obama himself troops to the Capitol to pitch it to Senate Democrats.

Both the House and Senate budget chairmen have been forced by worsening deficit estimates to scale back Obama's requests for domestic programs, while deeply controversial revenues from his global warming initiative won't be included either.

[...]

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...s-knife-obamas-budget/