It's official:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
U.S. deficit biggest since 1945

Well, we all knew this was going to happen, although the pro-Obama camp hasnt really shown much concern about it. I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits :) And with health care not passed yet, this is only the beginning.

But then again, maybe deficits dont matter?

Obama administration closes the books on fiscal 2009: Falling revenue plus soaring spending leads to a $1.42 trillion deficit.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's officially official.

The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.

That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6% overall, while spending soared 18.2% compared to fiscal year 2008. The causes: rising unemployment, the economic slowdown and the extraordinary measures taken by lawmakers to stem the economic meltdown that hit in fall 2008.

Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212% to the record dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier.

As a share of the economy, the deficit accounted for 10% of gross domestic product, up from 3.2% in 2008. As breath-taking as that may be, it's still not in the same stratosphere as the 1945 deficit, which hit 21% of GDP.

Perfect deficit cocktail mix
Fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, had all the right ingredients for a record-breaking deficit.

While tax revenue overall took a big hit, corporate receipts led the way, falling 55%. Individual income tax revenue fell 20%.

At the same time spending jumped in large part because of the various economic and financial rescue measures undertaken. The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total.

As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.

At the end of September, the country's total debt -- which is an accumulation of all annual deficits to date plus other obligations -- stood at $11.9 trillion.

The long-term view
In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place.

A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would approach 82% of gross domestic product. That's double the 41% recorded in 2008.

0:00 /6:16Deficit in critical condition
Most budget experts blanch at the thought, especially given that the country's fiscal future was already a source of concern before the economic crisis because of expected shortfalls over time in funding for Medicare and Social Security.

The financial and economic meltdowns of the past year have accelerated the strain on federal coffers. So much so that now the 10-year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are considered unsustainable, according to deficit experts William Gale and Alan Auerbach.

In a report this week, the Government Accountability Office noted that the deficits born from the financial crisis are not the biggest crux of the problem.

"While a lot of attention has been given to the recent fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the return of financial stability and economic growth," the GAO said.

The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later.

"The longer action to deal with the nation's long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the changes will need to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing."

The Obama administration is promising to put a plan in place to lessen the deficit when the economy recovers.

"It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back from the brink earlier this year. As we move from rescue to recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path," said OMB director Peter Orszag in a statement. "As part of the FY2011 budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put our country back on firm fiscal footing."

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Topic Title: It's official:
Topic Summary: 2009 closes with $1.4 trillion deficit

Good

Please start paying it back immediately out of your pocket.

It's you and your hero Bush that did this.

No, YOU pay it. I have tax shelters ;) I know youre kinda...not wise with money so I know you dont :D

Oh, and speaking of heros...who voted for him again?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits
Already debunked. Bush left Obama with over a trillion of the $1.42 trillion total deficit.

Even if we didn't elect anyone in 2008 and left the executive branch empty, Bush's legacy would have left us with at least $1 trillion in guaranteed deficits this year.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Given that Obama had to work with Bush put into place for 2009; to assign him all the blame/credit is wrong.
Yes, Obama increased the spending; some was already put into motion by Bush.

It is better to look at what will happen in 2010.
That will be completely in Obama's hands - he will have had the opportunity to analyze what he inherited from Bush and alter the decisions as he desires. And any new spending is under his direction w/ approval from Congress.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
nvm.

It is what it is. Happened on Obama's watch, under his budget, therefore HIS problem. End of story. Obama deficits > Bush's. Officially now.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits
Already debunked. Bush left Obama with over a trillion of the $1.42 trillion total deficit.

Even if we didn't elect anyone in 2008 and left the executive branch empty, Bush's legacy would have left us with at least $1 trillion in guaranteed deficits this year.

Yeah he forgot to mention about how the Bush economic team cooked the books and conveniently left out the cost of two wars in the budget.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits
Already debunked. Bush left Obama with over a trillion of the $1.42 trillion total deficit.

Even if we didn't elect anyone in 2008 and left the executive branch empty, Bush's legacy would have left us with at least $1 trillion in guaranteed deficits this year.

Yeah he forgot to mention about how the Bush economic team cooked the books and conveniently left out the cost of two wars in the budget.

So Obama actually CUT spending then? Is that what youre implying? Whether Bush's deficit had wars included or not, Obama's is larger. Therefore, Bush's smaller. I dont give two shits whether Bush's budget included them or not-his deficit was smaller.

Stay in school kids.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits
Already debunked. Bush left Obama with over a trillion of the $1.42 trillion total deficit.

Even if we didn't elect anyone in 2008 and left the executive branch empty, Bush's legacy would have left us with at least $1 trillion in guaranteed deficits this year.

Yeah he forgot to mention about how the Bush economic team cooked the books and conveniently left out the cost of two wars in the budget.

So Obama actually CUT spending then? Is that what youre implying? Whether Bush's deficit had wars included or not, Obama's is larger. Therefore, Bush's smaller. I dont give two shits whether Bush's budget included them or not-his deficit was smaller.

Stay in school kids.

No that's not what I was implying better double up on the meds today :roll:

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Given that Obama had to work with Bush put into place for 2009; to assign him all the blame/credit is wrong.
Yes, Obama increased the spending; some was already put into motion by Bush.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It is what it is. Happened on Obama's watch, under his budget, therefore HIS problem.

End of story.

Obama deficits > Bush's. Officially now.

I am heartened to see some glimmer of right coming from the most entrenched righties on this board putting you in your place.

Thought I would never ever do this. Good job CC :thumbsup: :shocked:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits
Already debunked. Bush left Obama with over a trillion of the $1.42 trillion total deficit.

Even if we didn't elect anyone in 2008 and left the executive branch empty, Bush's legacy would have left us with at least $1 trillion in guaranteed deficits this year.

Yeah he forgot to mention about how the Bush economic team cooked the books and conveniently left out the cost of two wars in the budget.

So Obama actually CUT spending then? Is that what youre implying? Whether Bush's deficit had wars included or not, Obama's is larger. Therefore, Bush's smaller. I dont give two shits whether Bush's budget included them or not-his deficit was smaller.

Stay in school kids.

No that's not what I was implying better double up on the meds today :roll:

Then why would you and jpeyton say I "conveniently" didnt mention how Bush didnt include the wars? Why the fuck does it matter? Even if he did, the story is still true.

Obama's budget, Obama's problem. Simple math: Obama's deficit>Bush's, wars included or not.

Sheesh.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Don't worry, there's a whole year left yet to make up excuses for next fiscal year when it's 100% under Obama/dem's ownership.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Dude, didn't you get the memo? Being a lib means never having to take responsibility for your actions. Come 2012, they'll still be blaming anyone and everyone but themselves for the mess we're in.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Yeah, it's official now :roll:

Too bad the GOP is politically dead, otherwise you might be able to capitalize on this "news".

I love the bling-bling American flag with hydraulics at the bottom of the page. Gangsta.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
U.S. deficit biggest since 1945

Well, we all knew this was going to happen, although the pro-Obama camp hasnt really shown much concern about it. I think we are now wishing for Bush deficits :) And with health care not passed yet, this is only the beginning.

But then again, maybe deficits dont matter?

Obama administration closes the books on fiscal 2009: Falling revenue plus soaring spending leads to a $1.42 trillion deficit.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's officially official.

The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.

That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6% overall, while spending soared 18.2% compared to fiscal year 2008. The causes: rising unemployment, the economic slowdown and the extraordinary measures taken by lawmakers to stem the economic meltdown that hit in fall 2008.

Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212% to the record dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier.

As a share of the economy, the deficit accounted for 10% of gross domestic product, up from 3.2% in 2008. As breath-taking as that may be, it's still not in the same stratosphere as the 1945 deficit, which hit 21% of GDP.

Perfect deficit cocktail mix
Fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, had all the right ingredients for a record-breaking deficit.

While tax revenue overall took a big hit, corporate receipts led the way, falling 55%. Individual income tax revenue fell 20%.

At the same time spending jumped in large part because of the various economic and financial rescue measures undertaken. The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total.

As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.

At the end of September, the country's total debt -- which is an accumulation of all annual deficits to date plus other obligations -- stood at $11.9 trillion.

The long-term view
In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place.

A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would approach 82% of gross domestic product. That's double the 41% recorded in 2008.

0:00 /6:16Deficit in critical condition
Most budget experts blanch at the thought, especially given that the country's fiscal future was already a source of concern before the economic crisis because of expected shortfalls over time in funding for Medicare and Social Security.

The financial and economic meltdowns of the past year have accelerated the strain on federal coffers. So much so that now the 10-year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are considered unsustainable, according to deficit experts William Gale and Alan Auerbach.

In a report this week, the Government Accountability Office noted that the deficits born from the financial crisis are not the biggest crux of the problem.

"While a lot of attention has been given to the recent fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the return of financial stability and economic growth," the GAO said.

The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later.

"The longer action to deal with the nation's long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the changes will need to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing."

The Obama administration is promising to put a plan in place to lessen the deficit when the economy recovers.

"It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back from the brink earlier this year. As we move from rescue to recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path," said OMB director Peter Orszag in a statement. "As part of the FY2011 budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put our country back on firm fiscal footing."


The financial mess took place between 2007-2008... so it is Obama's fault for trying Bush's stimulus idea?
 

Rangoric

Senior member
Apr 5, 2006
530
0
71
Wait a sec, I thought the budget for 2009 was done up starting in october 2008, before the election even took place.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
You guys are investigating this waaaaaaay too much for blackangst. Don't worry your little heads about the details, all you need to know is that it's official.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Yeah, it's official now :roll:

Too bad the GOP is politically dead, otherwise you might be able to capitalize on this "news".

I love the bling-bling American flag with hydraulics at the bottom of the page. Gangsta.

No shit sherlock :) Ive been saying that for a year lol.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
nvm.

It is what it is. Happened on Obama's watch, under his budget, therefore HIS problem. End of story. Obama deficits > Bush's. Officially now.

but...but...but... CLINTON!!!!!
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9

The financial mess took place between 2007-2008... so it is Obama's fault for trying Bush's stimulus idea?

Who made the decisions? Who signed it? Was it under duress? It was a choice, albeit a tough one. Mind you, Im not all waving my flag and saying nah nah nah (do you see where I did that? No.), Im simply saying Bush will no longer go in the history books as having the largest deficit in history. Math is math, regardless of the reasons or apologies. And whoever is elected after Obama may take that title, but for time being Obama has sunk the country in the hole the farthest.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Don't worry, there's a whole year left yet to make up excuses for next fiscal year when it's 100% under Obama/dem's ownership.

Actually to anyone with a modicom of common sense the disaster called Bush and his contimued support of his base (the elite) and their failed trickle down economics policies are enough of an excuse to last for 5 or 6 years, easily.

If the economy even looks like it is turning the corner by 2012 Obama will easily be reelected. That is why their is so much fear mongering by the hardcore righties, It's all they have left that gets anybody's attention.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
The Fail is quite large in this thread.

It would be great to see a rational discussion of the Federal deficit and debt but that clearly is not going to happen here.

Because the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were not paid for, they are generating substantial increases in the national debt. The full effect of the tax cuts will first be felt in the FY2010 budget.

Same goes for the "overseas contingency operations" - the cost has not been paid.

To a lesser extent the cost of 'Part D' and LNCB has not been paid with spending offsets or tax increases. The future cost of Part D will become more and more troubling as time goes by.

The burden that all this 'stuff' has placed on the Federal budget is compounded by the borrowing the Fed has done (and will continue to do) from the SS 'trust' fund --- that principle and interest continues to pile up in the overall debt.

These issues are further compounded by some rather outrageous revenue projections from the previous administration. Example: For FY2010, revenues will most likely total some $600 billion less than previously 'anticipated'. These revenues will represent the lowest percentage of GDP since 1950.


So there yah go .....





 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
But...but...it's official!