Anyone have the "official" 2009/2010 budget comparisons

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C :)
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Between $3.8 & $4 Trillion

It's from Fox, so it's up to you if you want to believe it or not.

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government's deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion, reflecting efforts to pull the nation out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.

Obama's budget overview will call for nearly $4 trillion in spending in fiscal year 2010 and creates space for up to $750 billion in additional bank bailout funds this year - money that hasn't been requested and the administration hopes will not be necessary to stabilize the still-reeling financial system.

Senior administration officials would not disclose a precise figure for the entire budget, but said it would likely fall between $3.8 trillion and $4 billion for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The White House will formally release its budget overview at 11 a.m. Thursday.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Between $3.8 & $4 Trillion

It's from Fox, so it's up to you if you want to believe it or not.

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government's deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion, reflecting efforts to pull the nation out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.

Obama's budget overview will call for nearly $4 trillion in spending in fiscal year 2010 and creates space for up to $750 billion in additional bank bailout funds this year - money that hasn't been requested and the administration hopes will not be necessary to stabilize the still-reeling financial system.

Senior administration officials would not disclose a precise figure for the entire budget, but said it would likely fall between $3.8 trillion and $4 billion for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The White House will formally release its budget overview at 11 a.m. Thursday.

/facepalm

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Wow...it's like kids in a candy store. And this new health care proposal is announced the day after our lecture on "responsibility"? WTF!
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I know 200 billion isnt a HUGE number in comparison, but at least for the first time we will actually put the war in Iraq IN THE DAMN BUDGET and not claim that the budget is really less than it really is.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,644
9,948
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Wow...it's like kids in a candy store. And this new health care proposal is announced the day after our lecture on "responsibility"? WTF!

We're going to buy all these socialist programs, step up the war in Afghanistan, lower taxes on 98% of the people, AND reduce the deficit!!!

Guess which parts of Obama's agenda are going to vanish?
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Looks like WSJ might have reservations about the numbers.

Wall Street Journal: Obama's 2% Illusion

Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.

Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.

The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.

On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.

Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Farang
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.

Laugh away while our debt piles up at magnitudes faster than Bush. At the end of the day none of us will think it funny when the bill is due with little to show for it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Farang
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.
The math isn't adding up...perhaps you can help shed some light on this.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Farang
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.

Laugh away while our debt piles up at magnitudes faster than Bush. At the end of the day none of us will think it funny when the bill is due with little to show for it.

Didn't Bush take 7 years to go from $2t to $3t? Looks like we hit $4t in 1 year.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Some motivated blogger out there has to be prepping the spreadsheets and graphs. Here comes the "Hockey stick" that really matters lol...
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Some motivated blogger out there has to be prepping the spreadsheets and graphs. Here comes the "Hockey stick" that really matters lol...

Ok, I had to do it. :)


Interestingly enough, by taking the raw US deficit and the raw US GDP, creating polynomial trendlines, and projecting forward, the deficit should be larger than the GDP by 2019. However, by sometime around 2113 the GDP will catch back up.

Fun graph

I know well the fallacies of this kind of analysis but it's still fun to do! :)
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C :)

Only different is Obama plans to raise some income through taxes levied on wealthy people, to the tune of almost a trillion.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Farang
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.

Laugh away while our debt piles up at magnitudes faster than Bush. At the end of the day none of us will think it funny when the bill is due with little to show for it.

Didn't Bush take 7 years to go from $2t to $3t? Looks like we hit $4t in 1 year.

Bush hid a ton of the spending as well. Remember, emergency spending, which all of Iraq and all of Afghanistan was, is not subject to review at all. That money has not been included in any analysis.

Secondly, Bush left us in a sorry state that requires massive funding to fix. Frankly, if this is the worst Obama can do, I'm all for it. Massive deficits > a crumbling USA.

Finally, a lot of this spending is going exactly where we need it. Green infrastructure, reforming healthcare, tax cuts/increases in sensible ways, etc etc.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,852
4,961
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Wow...it's like kids in a candy store. And this new health care proposal is announced the day after our lecture on "responsibility"? WTF!

What do you expect? The Ship of State has been run aground and you think it can be re-floated with a can of Fix-A-Flat?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
I guess I don't understand how we can even spend that much money in one year. This shit is just getting ridiculous. I was expecting a lot of spending, but at least spread out over four or eight years.

At least I can take solace in the fact that Dems are quickly running out of stuff to spend money on. I mean fuck, what else is there to do? The stim bill covered infrastructure and a lot of other projects they've been pushing for over the years. I didn't expect the new admin to focus on health care reform so quickly, but looks like they are wanting to tackle this as well. Maybe environmental reforms next?

I may be voting Libertarian come 2012. :p
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Farang
lol.. supply siders frothing at the mouth. I love it. Yes, of course, we know.. we need to give you all the money so you can give it back to us. Understood.

Laugh away while our debt piles up at magnitudes faster than Bush. At the end of the day none of us will think it funny when the bill is due with little to show for it.

Didn't Bush take 7 years to go from $2t to $3t? Looks like we hit $4t in 1 year.

Bush hid a ton of the spending as well. Remember, emergency spending, which all of Iraq and all of Afghanistan was, is not subject to review at all. That money has not been included in any analysis.

Secondly, Bush left us in a sorry state that requires massive funding to fix. Frankly, if this is the worst Obama can do, I'm all for it. Massive deficits > a crumbling USA.

Finally, a lot of this spending is going exactly where we need it. Green infrastructure, reforming healthcare, tax cuts/increases in sensible ways, etc etc.
Completely and 100% incorrect.

Just because something is 'off budget' does not mean it is not included in year in numbers. When you go back and look at Bush's spending and deficit numbers it includes ALL of his spending, including the wars.

BTW please explain to me how spending more reforms healthcare?? Wouldn't reforming healthcare result in us spending less??

What Obama is actually doing is spending more to GIVE healthcare to people who don't have it. Which means those of us who work hard for a living and who made the right choices in life are going to have to pay more in taxes so help support the people who made bad choices.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Which means those of us who work hard for a living and who made the right choices in life are going to have to pay more in taxes so help support the people who made bad choices.

Insurance salesman don't deserve their dollars anyway.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
It seems to me Obama & co. ARE living up to the "tax and spend" namesake, and making the wildly out of control spending of Bush look downright conservative.

But it would be helpful to see real numbers, I think I found 2009 which looks like about 3.3 trillion including Iraq/afghanistan.


edit: Actually, I'll go with "TAX, BORROW and SPEND" O&C verus " tax, Borrow and Spend" of B&C :)

It depends on which method of accounting you use.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Which means those of us who work hard for a living and who made the right choices in life are going to have to pay more in taxes so help support the people who made bad choices.

Insurance salesman don't deserve their dollars anyway.

So now government is not only a charity, but an insurance company? :confused:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: bamacre
Year 2000 Budget = $1.8 Trillion
Year 2010 Budget Deficit = $1.8 Trillion

Yep, isn't that insane? I remember coming on here early in W's Presidency and posting in shock about a 2.2Trillion dollar budget. I really should look up that thread one of these days...


Edit - found it. It was 2.4 trillion.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1278154&arctab=yes

Check out some of the posts in that thread... And also all you libs who consistently try to claim I or others didn't complain "when Bush did it" can kindly STFU.