Obama to propose $3.99 trillion budget

[fskimospy]

In Eskimospy's view it's Bush's fault the figure is so low. He would have had far higher stimulus and probably would be ok if it was $118T in debt. Only 18 is for pikers who don't believe in the magic of Keynesian Stimulus™.

That makes zero sense. Bush ran up too much debt, not too little.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That makes zero sense. Bush ran up too much debt, not too little.

Bush ran up too much debt and Obama too little? Is that what you're saying?

 

[fskimospy]

Bush ran up too much debt and Obama too little? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. I thought that was common knowledge? Bush ran up debt during a time the economy was growing well. That's bad. Obama ran up debt while the economy was deeply depressed. That's good, but Obama didn't run up as much debt as he should have.

 

[Matt1970]

Bush ran up too much debt and Obama too little? Is that what you're saying?

n/m

 

[glenn1]

Bush ran up too much debt and Obama too little? Is that what you're saying?

I guess stimulus only counts when a Democrat does it. Whatever, we already know he's a hack just like his idol Krugman and will argue debt is bad again once the GOP takes back POTUS in 2016.

 

[glenn1]

Yes. I thought that was common knowledge? Bush ran up debt during a time the economy was growing well. That's bad. Obama ran up debt while the economy was deeply depressed. That's good, but Obama didn't run up as much debt as he should have.

Of course you complete hack. What a fraud you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course you complete hack. What a fraud you are.

You're so stupid it's sad. Guess what, 2.5% GDP growth before a massive contraction of about 10% of GDP is a lot different than 2.5% GDP growth afterwards. If you break out a calculator I'm sure you can work out why.

It's amazing to me how enraged you get about things that you have no understanding of. I mean don't you want to learn something about this stuff if it makes you so mad?

 

[michal1980]

You're so stupid it's sad. Guess what, 2.5% GDP growth before a massive contraction of about 10% of GDP is a lot different than 2.5% GDP growth afterwards. If you break out a calculator I'm sure you can work out why.

It's amazing to me how enraged you get about things that you have no understanding of. I mean don't you want to learn something about this stuff if it makes you so mad?

ahh another one of those brilliant economics charts... always going up.

 

[berzerker60]

ahh another one of those brilliant economics charts... always going up.

Uhh, yes, as long as there are more people producing and consuming more goods - which is to say, the population grows like it always has, AND/OR there is technological development AND/OR there are any of the other sources of extrinsic and intrinsic growth - the economy will continue to grow in the long-term.

 

[ElFenix]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/obama-budget-399-trillion-republicans/22695611/

Really? While I agree with some of his new ideas, community college, and STEM financing. I am just baffled that we can't reduce our deficit. And why do we need more defense spending?

Anyway, its DOA, so I guess its moot. But there it is

you have no idea how negotiations work, do you?

ahh another one of those brilliant economics charts... always going up.

you sudden deficit/debt chickenhawks are the biggest threat to the economy there is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes. I thought that was common knowledge? Bush ran up debt during a time the economy was growing well. That's bad. Obama ran up debt while the economy was deeply depressed. That's good, but Obama didn't run up as much debt as he should have.

Our economy is no longer deeply depressed and is now doing very well according to our current administration...yet Obama's current budget proposal continues his tradition of huge deficit spending ($474B). This proposed deficit exceeds every one of Bush's annual deficits except 2009. Obama continues running up significant debt even while the economy is growing well...more so than Bush it seems.

 

[fskimospy]

Our economy is no longer deeply depressed and is now doing very well according to our current administration...yet Obama's current budget proposal continues his tradition of huge deficit spending ($474B). This proposed deficit exceeds every one of Bush's annual deficits except 2009.

You aren't adjusting for inflation or relative GDP, so that's mistake #1. Second, over the last years the US deficit has averaged a bit over 3% of GDP, making this years deficit of 2.8% of GDP lower than average.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49450-MBR.pdf

That's right, Obama is thriftier this year than the average since Reagan came into office, and many of those years were much brighter economically than now.

Obama continues his desire to run up significant debt even while the economy is growing well...more so than Bush it seems.

As shown by my previously linked chart the economy is still well below its potential output. Additionally, inflation is low, potential employment far below where it could be, and wages are stagnant. The economy is not doing well, it is simply doing better than it was before.

I don't care what politicians say, and neither should you. Obama has brought down the deficit far too quickly in light of the reality of our economic situation.

 

[ElFenix]

Our economy is no longer deeply depressed and is now doing very well according to our current administration...yet Obama's current budget proposal continues his tradition of huge deficit spending ($474B). This proposed deficit exceeds every one of Bush's annual deficits except 2009. Obama continues running up significant debt even while the economy is growing well...more so than Bush it seems.

so, a fiscal 2016 budget deficit of 474 billion would work out to about 2.55% GDP assuming 2.5% real GDP growth.

a deficit of 2.55% GDP would be lower than 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2003, 2004, and 2009 onward.

 

[fskimospy]

so, a fiscal 2016 budget deficit of 474 billion would work out to about 2.55% GDP assuming 2.5% real GDP growth.

a deficit of 2.55% GDP would be lower than 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2003, 2004, and 2009 onward.

And also the primary reason for Bush not running larger deficits in the 2005-2007 period was that housing bubble which provided tons of additional revenue at the cost of...well...making all those deficits in 2009 onward necessary.

 

[BoberFett]

You're so stupid it's sad. Guess what, 2.5% GDP growth before a massive contraction of about 10% of GDP is a lot different than 2.5% GDP growth afterwards. If you break out a calculator I'm sure you can work out why.

It's amazing to me how enraged you get about things that you have no understanding of. I mean don't you want to learn something about this stuff if it makes you so mad?

So you want to reinflate the bubble? Without the bubble, the growth would have tapered off, instead the crash dropped GDP. Are you advocating trying to catch up to where we should be based on a bubble economy?

 

[fskimospy]

So you want to reinflate the bubble? Without the bubble, the growth would have tapered off, instead the crash dropped GDP. Are you advocating trying to catch up to where we should be based on a bubble economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_output

In economics, potential output (also referred to as "natural gross domestic product") refers to the highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term.

That's what I want to return to.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You aren't adjusting for inflation or relative GDP, so that's mistake #1. Second, over the last years the US deficit has averaged a bit over 3% of GDP, making this years deficit of 2.8% of GDP lower than average.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49450-MBR.pdf

That's right, Obama is thriftier this year than the average since Reagan came into office, and many of those years were much brighter economically than now.



As shown by my previously linked chart the economy is still well below its potential output. Additionally, inflation is low, potential employment far below where it could be, and wages are stagnant. The economy is not doing well, it is simply doing better than it was before.

I don't care what politicians say, and neither should you. Obama has brought down the deficit far too quickly in light of the reality of our economic situation.

And Bush's deficits were typically at or much lower than the historic average as a percent of GDP.

 

[fskimospy]

And Bush's deficits were typically at or much lower than the historic average as a percent of GDP.

Bush significantly increased the US's debt to GDP ratio during a time where we were at or near full employment when he should have been decreasing it. That is extremely irresponsible. There's really no way around this.

Also, you're really going to credit Bush with low deficits for 2005 through 2007 when those lower deficits were fueled by a massive revenue increase from a catastrophic bubble that was about to explode and wreck the economy? Seriously? It seems pretty selective to credit Bush with his good deficit stewardship when he was taking advantage of a revenue bubble but then fault Obama for his perceived bad deficit stewardship when he is trying to clean up the aftermath of that same revenue bubble, no?

 

[werepossum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_output



That's what I want to return to.

And yet you somehow feel that borrowing ever more money plus more money to make your interest payments is the route to attain the "highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term". Go figure.

Until very recently that was the economic model of Greece. Eventually they found that no one would loan them any more money unless they stopped increasing the rate at which they went into debt. But I'm sure it will be different for us.

 

[ElFenix]

And yet you somehow feel that borrowing ever more money plus more money to make your interest payments is the route to attain the "highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term". Go figure.

because that's how this work. you have sustained periods below full employment when the government doesn't step in because literally no one else can do it.

Until very recently that was the economic model of Greece. Eventually they found that no one would loan them any more money unless they stopped increasing the rate at which they went into debt. But I'm sure it will be different for us.

greece is completely different. greece is more like south carolina than the federal government. edit: except that south carolina isn't given the same interest rates as germany.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet you somehow feel that borrowing ever more money plus more money to make your interest payments is the route to attain the "highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term". Go figure.

Until very recently that was the economic model of Greece. Eventually they found that no one would loan them any more money unless they stopped increasing the rate at which they went into debt. But I'm sure it will be different for us.

I'm just following what economics says. You seem content to stick with fact free ideology. That's fine for you, but you can't expect others to follow.

Anyone who tries to compare the U.S. and Greece is just showing that they understand neither. Why you continue to insist on comparing countries borrowing in their own currency vs ones that aren't is beyond me.

 

[schmuckley]

These clowns will keep doing what they are until somebody stops them.
They will serve whatever lobbyist pays them the most.
The American government is broken.
Anything in there about securing the borders?

 

[Subyman]

So you want to reinflate the bubble? Without the bubble, the growth would have tapered off, instead the crash dropped GDP. Are you advocating trying to catch up to where we should be based on a bubble economy?

Yup, idiot graph. You can't draw "trend" lines on a graph with a ~10 year range. Business cycles are measured in 5-15 years.

 

[Matt1970]

Bush significantly increased the US's debt to GDP ratio during a time where we were at or near full employment when he should have been decreasing it. That is extremely irresponsible. There's really no way around this.

Also, you're really going to credit Bush with low deficits for 2005 through 2007 when those lower deficits were fueled by a massive revenue increase from a catastrophic bubble that was about to explode and wreck the economy? Seriously? It seems pretty selective to credit Bush with his good deficit stewardship when he was taking advantage of a revenue bubble but then fault Obama for his perceived bad deficit stewardship when he is trying to clean up the aftermath of that same revenue bubble, no?

If everyone is going to give Clinton credit for the surpluses then why not? And Bush significant increase in the US's debt to GDP ratio was when unemployment was just about where it is now.

Unemployment Jan 1, 2002 5.70%
Unemplyment Dec 1, 2014 5.60%

 

[BoberFett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_output

the highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term.

That's what I want to return to.

You want to return to something determined by tea leaves?

Why not take your graph further back? Is it because when graphed started in 2000 that you can make the graph say what you want? From what I see between 2000 and 2002, it looks like our trend line is back on what it would have been before the bubble.

Here you go:

LOL, economics. Science for people who don't really care about facts.