Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Are we going for the all-time record here, or what?

Budget numbers likely part of election battle

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday in a report sure to become ammunition in the election-year fight over red ink.

In its annual wintertime economic outlook, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst also estimated that the deficit would ease to $362 billion in 2005, according to numbers obtained by The Associated Press.

The budget office also estimated that deficits for the decade ending in 2013 would total nearly $2.4 trillion. The August report foresaw deficits totaling $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

The added red ink was due in part new costs such as the prescription drug benefit created last year.

President Bush plans to send Congress a $2.3 trillion budget for that year next Monday in the face of growing criticism by Democrats and conservatives over increased spending and surging federal shortfalls.

The figures were similar to the budget office's last report as the added costs for the newly passed Medicare expansion were offset by higher revenue generated by the improving economy. In August, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst envisioned shortfalls of $480 billion for this year and $341 billion for 2005.

Even so, underscoring the political pressure he feels, Bush and administration officials have said their budget will propose cutting the deficit to half of this year's level by 2009.

No details from Bush
Bush has so far revealed no details of how he would achieve that. Democrats say his goal would be a minimal accomplishment because deficits are so high to start with. They also say it is meant as a distraction from the even deeper deficits expected when baby boomers retire in force just beyond a decade from now.

The deficit hit $375 billion in 2003, the highest in dollar terms ever. The previous record was $290 billion in 1992. Administration officials say the more important measure is how the shortfall compares to the size of the U.S. economy, a measure by which today's red ink is smaller than it was in the 1980s.

All the estimates assume lawmakers will not rewrite any tax laws and let spending grow only at the rate of inflation.

Because tax and spending changes are inevitable, the forecasts are not meant as a prediction. Rather, they provide lawmakers with a baseline from which to measure the effect their policies would have on the budget.

Many analysts say the budget office's deficit projections will probably prove too low -- especially in the long-term -- because they omit expenses the president and Congress are likely to approve.

These include making at least some tax cuts permanent, changing the alternative minimum tax so it doesn't affect growing number of middle-income earners, and spending increases for popular programs or unforeseen needs like war or disasters.

Wars' impact
The projections also assume $87.5 billion approved last November for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be approved anew every year throughout the decade -- which is unlikely to occur.

The two parties are already fighting over the red ink that has materialized during the Bush years.

The budget's health has taken an abrupt nosedive after four straight years of annual surpluses that ran through 2001.

Only last January, the budget office estimated 10-year surpluses -- not deficits -- of $1.3 trillion. And in January 2001, when Bush took office, the projection was for a decade of black ink totaling $5.6 trillion.

Republicans say Bush is not to blame for the turnabout. Analysts say the surpluses have dissolved due to the recession, the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress, and growing spending for defense, Medicare and other programs.

Even so, many Republicans have grown increasingly uneasy with the shortfalls. The public has mostly ignored the budget gaps, focusing instead on the economy, war and terrorism, but recent polls indicate people are paying more attention.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Republicans say Bush is not to blame for the turnabout.

Analysts say the surpluses have dissolved due to [...] the tax cuts Bush pushed through [...] growing spending for defense, Medicare and other programs

Who to believe, analysts or Republicans? Bush seems to be at least partly to blame, but there are other circumstances.


The deficit hit $375 billion in 2003, the highest in dollar terms ever. The previous record was $290 billion in 1992. Administration officials say the more important measure is how the shortfall compares to the size of the U.S. economy, a measure by which today's red ink is smaller than it was in the 1980s.
Is it smaller than it was in 1992 though? It may be smaller than in the 80's, but that's not when the record was set.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?

i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,109
5,643
126
Whatever happened to the "Common Sense Revolution"? Perhaps it's time for another one, call it the "Sense Revolution" though, since sense is not Common. Shake up the system, remove "trailers(tailers?) from Bills, increase revenues to levels of expenditures, cut expenditures, and for god sake quit borrowing money unnecessarily.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Bush and administration officials have said their budget will propose cutting the deficit to half of this year's level by 2009.

Oh boy, it will only take 5 years to cut the deficit down to $240 billion!! That is quite an accomplishment. There is nothing to worry about here...

rolleye.gif
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
This will be GWB's legacy. A borrow and spend Republican to top the gross excesses of Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Congress of the 80s.
That smug smirk he exhibited during the SOTUA is the realization that he won't be around when my generation and future generation have to pay down this deficit and the debt. Thumbs WAY down for this president.
:disgust:
 

buckmasterson

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
482
0
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
This will be GWB's legacy. A borrow and spend Republican to top the gross excesses of Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Congress of the 80s.
That smug smirk he exhibited during the SOTUA is the realization that he won't be around when my generation and future generation have to pay down this deficit and the debt. Thumbs WAY down for this president.
:disgust:

Man you are right about that look. The guy looked like he was laughing at us. Almost like "I'm king, and you're my servants". He looked and acted like he's on a power trip. It was spooky.








 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,121
126
Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Originally posted by: chowderhead
This will be GWB's legacy. A borrow and spend Republican to top the gross excesses of Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Congress of the 80s.
That smug smirk he exhibited during the SOTUA is the realization that he won't be around when my generation and future generation have to pay down this deficit and the debt. Thumbs WAY down for this president.
:disgust:

Man you are right about that look. The guy looked like he was laughing at us. Almost like "I'm king, and you're my servants". He looked and acted like he's on a power trip. It was spooky.
Buckmasterson, I remember your Dad.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?

i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?

Imagine that. Using mathematics to derive arithmatic equations. hehehehe they lull us to sleep with the borrowing needs side of the picture and then... bamb.. they hit us with SS and Medicare need fixing...
The funniest thing I've heard lately is that every man woman and child owes some 29,000$ to the National Debt... but, I won't be paying it.. they top 50% pay the tax.. they owe it and they might even pay it some day.. Sad actually.. But, the only thing to worry about is debt service. If the rate goes hyper then dig many big holes. The folks holding LT Treasury vehicles fixed at 2% will go bonkers.. while the short term debt puts the economy in doubt. But, I digress.. again.. :)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?
i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?
I've always been intrigued by the use of %GDP as well. If I had to guess, I imagine governments use %GDP b/c the denominator is much larger . . . almost an order of magnitude I guess.

At our current clip, this conservative administration is spending 25% more than it takes in. If you take them at their word it gets only worse. On the revenue side they plan to make current tax cuts permanent, revise the AMT, and possibly more tax cuts. On the expenditure side, Bush dreams of global hegemony (unopposed military), NMD, mission to Mars . . . while giving little attention to the impending explosion in SS, Medicare, and if current employment trends continue Medicaid. In the drug-induced haze of neocon delirium . . . economic growth will be sufficient to overcome not only lowered tax rates but also increased spending. Oops I'm mistaken . . by Bushie estimates, they hope to cut the deficit in half.
rolleye.gif
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?

i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?

Imagine that. Using mathematics to derive arithmatic equations. hehehehe they lull us to sleep with the borrowing needs side of the picture and then... bamb.. they hit us with SS and Medicare need fixing...
The funniest thing I've heard lately is that every man woman and child owes some 29,000$ to the National Debt... but, I won't be paying it.. they top 50% pay the tax.. they owe it and they might even pay it some day.. Sad actually.. But, the only thing to worry about is debt service. If the rate goes hyper then dig many big holes. The folks holding LT Treasury vehicles fixed at 2% will go bonkers.. while the short term debt puts the economy in doubt. But, I digress.. again.. :)

Here's what confuses me. Sure every man, woman, and child owes $29,000. Who do they owe it to? Those holding the debt. Who holds the debt? Every man, woman and child who owns T-Bills! So if we said "let's raise taxes on the rich to pay off the debt", and all those with money to pay taxes pay back the $29,000, the government pays off the bonds...right back to the folks that hold the debt. Zero-sum-gain?

The foreign-owned debt is a different story...that's money bleeding out of the US.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?

i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?

Imagine that. Using mathematics to derive arithmatic equations. hehehehe they lull us to sleep with the borrowing needs side of the picture and then... bamb.. they hit us with SS and Medicare need fixing...
The funniest thing I've heard lately is that every man woman and child owes some 29,000$ to the National Debt... but, I won't be paying it.. they top 50% pay the tax.. they owe it and they might even pay it some day.. Sad actually.. But, the only thing to worry about is debt service. If the rate goes hyper then dig many big holes. The folks holding LT Treasury vehicles fixed at 2% will go bonkers.. while the short term debt puts the economy in doubt. But, I digress.. again.. :)

Here's what confuses me. Sure every man, woman, and child owes $29,000. Who do they owe it to? Those holding the debt. Who holds the debt? Every man, woman and child who owns T-Bills! So if we said "let's raise taxes on the rich to pay off the debt", and all those with money to pay taxes pay back the $29,000, the government pays off the bonds...right back to the folks that hold the debt. Zero-sum-gain?

The foreign-owned debt is a different story...that's money bleeding out of the US.

Yeah.. the foreign holders of our debt is a problem - maybe - if the owners find the Euro more appealing then whoosh... and they get dollars to buy euros from folks who want dollars to buy the reason the folks went to Euro to start with... hmmm if that happens... no one would want dollars and they would become worthless.. like Italian Lira was or Argentinian money.. hyper inflation... then nitey nite.. Oh.. not to forget beside the 45% held by foreign governments and folks there is that nagging accumulated trade deficit of nearing 3 trillion $..

The first part is the funny part.. As you say.. who holds the Debt (besides the Foreign interests) and they will take their money to pay the government in tax to liquidate the debt.. so.. they break even with the tax paid to liquidated it but, they don't get any more interest and their net worth just went down.. they loose... that is the humor.. well to me.. being poor and all.. and it is the reason not to pay down the debt across the board.. who loses and who gains.. Not me.. either way..
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Holy moly! That is WELL over $1 billion a day. The interest on the national debt is going to consume the national budget. This is bad news folks.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the better measure (rather than dollars, inflation adjusted dollars, or % of GDP) would be as a percentage of true revenue funded spending (exclude money stolen from SS/Medicare and borrowed by debt issuances) ?

i.e. you make $100, you spend $120, you are at a 20% deficit?

Imagine that. Using mathematics to derive arithmatic equations. hehehehe they lull us to sleep with the borrowing needs side of the picture and then... bamb.. they hit us with SS and Medicare need fixing...
The funniest thing I've heard lately is that every man woman and child owes some 29,000$ to the National Debt... but, I won't be paying it.. they top 50% pay the tax.. they owe it and they might even pay it some day.. Sad actually.. But, the only thing to worry about is debt service. If the rate goes hyper then dig many big holes. The folks holding LT Treasury vehicles fixed at 2% will go bonkers.. while the short term debt puts the economy in doubt. But, I digress.. again.. :)

Here's what confuses me. Sure every man, woman, and child owes $29,000. Who do they owe it to? Those holding the debt. Who holds the debt? Every man, woman and child who owns T-Bills! So if we said "let's raise taxes on the rich to pay off the debt", and all those with money to pay taxes pay back the $29,000, the government pays off the bonds...right back to the folks that hold the debt. Zero-sum-gain?

The foreign-owned debt is a different story...that's money bleeding out of the US.

Yeah.. the foreign holders of our debt is a problem - maybe - if the owners find the Euro more appealing then whoosh... and they get dollars to buy euros from folks who want dollars to buy the reason the folks went to Euro to start with... hmmm if that happens... no one would want dollars and they would become worthless.. like Italian Lira was or Argentinian money.. hyper inflation... then nitey nite.. Oh.. not to forget beside the 45% held by foreign governments and folks there is that nagging accumulated trade deficit of nearing 3 trillion $..

The first part is the funny part.. As you say.. who holds the Debt (besides the Foreign interests) and they will take their money to pay the government in tax to liquidate the debt.. so.. they break even with the tax paid to liquidated it but, they don't get any more interest and their net worth just went down.. they loose... that is the humor.. well to me.. being poor and all.. and it is the reason not to pay down the debt across the board.. who loses and who gains.. Not me.. either way..


Recognizing your first scenario, if that happens, then we have DM's depression scenario :) But worldwide. So LR are you saying I should put my 401k in currency hedge funds? ;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
alchemize,
Recognizing your first scenario, if that happens, then we have DM's depression scenario But worldwide. So LR are you saying I should put my 401k in currency hedge funds?

I don't think anything like that can happen given the size of the US economy in relation to the rest of the world. The only current issue needing remedy is Jobs and the variance betwixt wages for creation and losses.. If we started to slip badly we'd have all sorts of nations trying to help us up cuz they help themselves as well and they need us more than we them. We simply need to get back to basics. Spend a bit less so the % of Debt GNP or GDP or squirrels in the park decreases.
I have no investments save a few maple leafs that were a gift. I've been one of those live while I'm alive type thinkers so if I had a 401K I'd not invest in currency hedge funds at all :) I'm risk averse... I'd invest in buffalo herds.. well the land they graze on. :).. oh and those all stuck together... apartments.. Tangible assets suit me better.. not stuff that someone smarter than me can manipulate and me not catch it.. Call me neurotic... tis OK.. It may be true.. The Stataticians say that the probability of being in an aircraft accident is about the same as being eaten by a great white shark... so I don't go in the ocean thus precluding the potential for an air event.. :)
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
alchemize,
Recognizing your first scenario, if that happens, then we have DM's depression scenario But worldwide. So LR are you saying I should put my 401k in currency hedge funds?

I don't think anything like that can happen given the size of the US economy in relation to the rest of the world. The only current issue needing remedy is Jobs and the variance betwixt wages for creation and losses.. If we started to slip badly we'd have all sorts of nations trying to help us up cuz they help themselves as well and they need us more than we them. We simply need to get back to basics. Spend a bit less so the % of Debt GNP or GDP or squirrels in the park decreases.
I have no investments save a few maple leafs that were a gift. I've been one of those live while I'm alive type thinkers so if I had a 401K I'd not invest in currency hedge funds at all :) I'm risk averse... I'd invest in buffalo herds.. well the land they graze on. :).. oh and those all stuck together... apartments.. Tangible assets suit me better.. not stuff that someone smarter than me can manipulate and me not catch it.. Call me neurotic... tis OK.. It may be true.. The Stataticians say that the probability of being in an aircraft accident is about the same as being eaten by a great white shark... so I don't go in the ocean thus precluding the potential for an air event.. :)

REIT's went through the roof this year ;) But I'm diversified...trust me, if the "bomb drops" on US Currency, nobody is safe, because the world economy would collapse. At least for the next 20-50+ years. That's why I don't fret too much. If the world is gonna end, then the only thing worth anything, including gold, will be food and ammunition.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
The budget's health has taken an abrupt nosedive after four straight years of annual surpluses that ran through 2001.

Only last January, the budget office estimated 10-year surpluses -- not deficits -- of $1.3 trillion. And in January 2001, when Bush took office, the projection was for a decade of black ink totaling $5.6 trillion.

Wow I thnk that says a lot about the fiscal responsibility. We're fighting a war that in retrospect with the facts maybe we shouldn't be fighting. The only folks who have benefited are companys that the Bush adminstration has deep rooted ties to. Because of poor managing of our countrys best interest, they have fell asleep at the wheel when it comes to putting the brakes on companys just taking american jobs overseas. This administration has failed miserably in so many areas and yet he asks for 4 more years.

The only thing we have a suplus of.............................is a bunch of excuses.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
alchemize,
REIT's went through the roof this year But I'm diversified...trust me, if the "bomb drops" on US Currency, nobody is safe, because the world economy would collapse. At least for the next 20-50+ years. That's why I don't fret too much. If the world is gonna end, then the only thing worth anything, including gold, will be food and ammunition.

Saw on TV last night folks determined to save their .50 cal rifles... I fired 50s on PBR once and know they must be arming against Godzilla. Yeah.. food and ammo.. I can plant food on land but, my air guns might not prevail if some hungry folks happen by..
I doubt any bombs are in the future. But, even then the rich folks tag will just be moved from the techno and placed on the corporate farmer. Where the demand goes so goes the $.. :)