Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges

[winnar111]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...heck/main4557520.shtml

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal.

"I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short.

Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.



Did someone ever put a memo on Obama's desk that the Bush tax cuts don't expire in 2009?

If the man can really channel 2011 tax hikes and a 2011 withdrawl and time shift it into 2009, I might vote for him! :laugh:

 

[frostedflakes]

Don't know about those other numbers, but where did you get the info about his tax cuts costing $85 billion per year? True, his tax cuts will total about $80 billion IIRC, but more taxes will be collected from higher income families. He's also promised to reduce tax loopholes for corporations. All of this may more than make up for the low/middle-class tax cuts.

 

[nageov3t]

Topic Summary: is he really god?

technically I believe he's his son

 

[RichardE]

Seems to be doing better than the 3 trillion plan put out recently, or McCains "buy everyones" mortgage plan.

I'd like to see these numbers broken down some more, especially since multiple people on this site are able to actually analise numbers without them being spoonfed to us.

Hell, do you believe that McCain is actually leading by 6 EC (according to Fox).

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Topic Summary: is he really god?

It looks like Obama will be elected so if you're dumb enough to wonder seriously, let alone post the question in public, maybe you'd better consider shaping up. :laugh:

That's another advantage of being an atheist.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be doing better than the 3 trillion plan put out recently, or McCains "buy everyones" mortgage plan.

I'd like to see these numbers broken down some more, especially since multiple people on this site are able to actually analise numbers without them being spoonfed to us.

Hell, do you believe that McCain is actually leading by 6 EC (according to Fox).

I put my prediction in the other thread that Obama will get 311 EV. And yes, McCain sucks.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be doing better than the 3 trillion plan put out recently, or McCains "buy everyones" mortgage plan.

I'd like to see these numbers broken down some more, especially since multiple people on this site are able to actually analise numbers without them being spoonfed to us.

Hell, do you believe that McCain is actually leading by 6 EC (according to Fox).

I put my prediction in the other thread that Obama will get 311 EV. And yes, McCain sucks.

They way I see it, is we might come out of this with more dept with Obama. Yeah it sucks, but than again, do we want to start supressing spending in a time when business need money due to a credit crunch? As with Bush's office we won't know what or how Obamas policies will truly affect the country until after. Thought looking at both candidates, even though Obamas plans is far from perfect, I prefer it better to the socilizations of America that is McCains plan (help finance mortgages...oooo great the Government just got all the land!). I'm sure he didn't mean it like that, but McCain is pretty scary, and I think he can be taken advantage of easily by people hungry for power.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Seems to be doing better than the 3 trillion plan put out recently, or McCains "buy everyones" mortgage plan.

I'd like to see these numbers broken down some more, especially since multiple people on this site are able to actually analise numbers without them being spoonfed to us.

Hell, do you believe that McCain is actually leading by 6 EC (according to Fox).

Hey, I have an idea! Let's try to change the subject!

Based on the amount of critical thinking I've seen on this site, I doubt even half of the people here can even add 2 digit numbers without a calculator or using their fingers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Topic Title: Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges
Topic Summary: is he really god?

He pisses you MRR's off, yes that makes him a god :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

McCain's proposals would increase spending and deficit faster than Obama's

If Elected ...
2 Rivals? Plans on Fiscal Issue Add to Deficits

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: October 28, 2008

WASHINGTON ? While both presidential candidates enter the campaign?s final week promising to be the better fiscal steward, each has outlined tax and spending proposals that would make annual budget deficits worse, analysts say, with Senator John McCain likely to create a deeper hole than Senator Barack Obama would.

Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, has proposed bigger tax cuts. He has also promised more in spending cuts, but he has not specified where most of them would come from. Even now that the financial crisis has given rise to one bailout package and prompted both candidates to call for billions more in stimulus spending, Mr. McCain has stuck by his promise to balance the budget by the end of his term, a pledge that fiscal analysts call unachievable.

Mr. Obama, his Democratic rival, has vowed to reduce the deficit and put it on a path to balance. He also promises an expensive effort to make health care insurance more widely available, a raft of other spending programs and tax cuts for most families and small businesses. He would raise taxes on the wealthiest households to help pay for his health care plans.

Neither presidential candidate has provided enough detail, especially about spending programs and what they would cut, for budget groups to put price tags on their agendas.

Conservative and liberal analysts agree that the next president should not be expected to balance the budget in his first term, because short-term deficit spending can stimulate the economy and the crisis is forcing the government to spend more in aid even as it collects less in taxes.

But for the long run, they say, the president?s fiscal record will hinge on whether he can achieve the health care cost savings each promises, which in turn will help control the fast-rising expenses for Medicare and Medicaid. Neither candidate has a comprehensive proposal to address unsustainable growth in those programs.

?Neither one of them is being fiscally responsible,? said David M. Walker, a former head of the Government Accountability Office who has long warned about the perils of deficits.

The next president will inherit economic challenges greater than any other president since Franklin D. Roosevelt 75 years ago. Yet while the country entered the Depression after a decade of budget surpluses, today?s crisis hits a nation in worse financial shape ? with growing wartime deficits, heavy borrowing from foreigners, and crushing retirement health costs for aging baby boomers looming.

The deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, was $455 billion, or 3.2 percent of total economic output. Analysts say it could reach $1 trillion in 2009, or more than 7 percent of projected economic output, with the country in recession and fighting a two-front war. During the 1980s, the deficit peaked at about 6 percent of economic output; economists consider anything above about 3 percent to be a worrisome level for the deficit.

So far, both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have insisted they do not have to have to scale back their pre-crisis platforms.

The fiscal outlook and history suggest otherwise. Among past promises that crashed against realities: Roosevelt?s pledge to balance budgets, Ronald Reagan?s and George Bush?s antitax vows and Bill Clinton?s middle-class tax cut. The current President Bush kept his biggest promises, for tax cuts and a Medicare prescription-drug benefit, but the national debt has doubled to more than $10 trillion during his administration.

Leon E. Panetta, who was Mr. Clinton?s first budget director, said he had warned Mr. Obama of the realities ahead, should he win. ?I?ve told him, Bill Clinton found this out. He walked into the Oval Office, and suddenly he found he had a bigger deficit than he even thought he had.? Mr. Clinton?s reaction, he said, was, ?I?m not going to be able to do what I want to do!?

Mr. McCain?s proposed tax cuts would mean about $1.5 trillion in lower revenue over his term, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Extending the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 beyond their scheduled 2010 expiration would account for more than a third of that total. He also would change the alternative minimum tax to hit fewer middle-income taxpayers, reduce corporate income taxes and accelerate business write-offs for equipment. The 10-year cost of Mr. McCain?s tax plan would be as much as $4.2 trillion, the center says.

The Republican?s health plan mostly seeks to reduce prices. Mr. McCain would also provide a tax credit of up to $5,000 a family to buy insurance, at a cost of about $800 billion through 2013. To partly offset that, he would make workers? employer-provided health benefits taxable as income. He also proposes savings from unspecified changes in Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. McCain has fewer spending initiatives than Mr. Obama. His main one is to increase the size of the military. He proposes energy incentives, offset by selling permits for emissions of heat-trapping gases that are believed to contribute to climate change. He also offers income supplements for older, low-income workers and more financing for the No Child Left Behind education law.

To help balance the budget, Mr. McCain claims billions of dollars in savings from reducing forces in Iraq. Neither he nor Mr. Obama, however, account for the increasing deployments to Afghanistan. Mr. McCain also calls for cutting ?corporate welfare,? ending spending earmarks for special projects and freezing domestic appropriations in his first year.

By his final budget for 2013, Mr. McCain estimated he would cut $114 billion ? he does not say how ? to reach balance. He would still be about $200 billion short, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. But that estimate does not include the costs of the $700 billion financial bailout package already passed by Congress (its proponents say much of the price tag will be recouped by the government in the long run) or any additional economic stimulus plans that Congress might approve in coming months.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a centrist budget watchdog group, estimated Mr. McCain could fall about $600 billion short in 2013, roughly the annual cost of Medicare.

Mr. Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year, and repeal them immediately for those above that level. He would cut other taxes, including for low-income workers and small businesses, and raise taxes on the dividends and capital gains of the affluent. Like Mr. McCain, he would change the alternative minimum tax to apply only to the rich, as intended, and close corporate loopholes, most of them unspecified.

Mr. Obama says the new revenue from higher taxes on the well-off would pay for his health plan, which would cost an estimated $115 billion the first year, but increase after that. That still leaves his tax cuts for everyone else to add to the deficits.

The Tax Policy Center estimated that the overall revenue loss would be nearly $1 trillion for Mr. Obama?s term, and $2.9 trillion measured over a decade. Annual federal spending, which exceeds 20 percent of gross domestic product, would grow under both men?s plans. Revenue would continue to be a lower percentage, measured against the size of the economy ? 18.3 percent under Mr. Obama, and 17.6 percent under Mr. McCain, according to the tax center. The difference signals continued, deepening deficits.

The size of both candidates? tax cuts troubles many budget analysts. Even if the next president succeeds in reining in health care costs, said Joseph J. Minarik, senior vice president of the business-supported Committee for Economic Development, those savings will take years to appear while the tax cuts would be immediate.

Mr. Obama?s spending plans, beyond his health care initiative, would mean increases for education, infrastructure, research and foreign aid, and more for bolstering the military than Mr. McCain has proposed.

He has a more ambitious climate-change proposal, mandating that companies buy emissions permits at government auctions. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that those could bring in up to $300 billion annually by 2020. Mr. Obama would use the initial revenue for energy initiatives and tax rebates to offset many Americans? fuel costs.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: winnar111

I put my prediction in the other thread that Obama will get 311 EV.

Oh look, something else we can bank won't happen.

 

[winnar111]

Here come the deflections and diversions!

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...heck/main4557520.shtml

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal.

"I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short.

Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.



Did someone ever put a memo on Obama's desk that the Bush tax cuts don't expire in 2009?

If the man can really channel 2011 tax hikes and a 2011 withdrawl and time shift it into 2009, I might vote for him! :laugh:

You need the Power of our political process if you want to accomplish something big in our society. One thing required in our (competitive) political process if you want to get elected is to make grandiose promises, even if you know you can't keep them. I don't have a problem with that. It is just the way it is. Takes a rare person to resist the temptations (corruption) that comes with that power...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Here come the deflections and diversions!

It's a deflection and diversion to point out that McCain's proposals are just as fiscally irresponsible if it not worse, according to expert independent analysis?

Hardly. More like you are desperate to attack Obama, but are throwing rocks from inside the glass house that is McCain.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Here come the deflections and diversions!

It's a deflection and diversion to point out that McCain's proposals are just as fiscally irresponsible if it not worse, according to expert independent analysis?

Hardly. More like you are desperate to attack Obama, but are throwing rocks from inside the glass house that is McCain.

What are you going to post next week?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Here come the deflections and diversions!

It's a deflection and diversion to point out that McCain's proposals are just as fiscally irresponsible if it not worse, according to expert independent analysis?

Hardly. More like you are desperate to attack Obama, but are throwing rocks from inside the glass house that is McCain.

What are you going to post next week?

Why do you care? I doubt you'll still be here to find out.

 

[jpeyton]

No shit, pledges cost money?

I thought his health care plan would be free, donated by our good friends in the drug and insurance industries :laugh:

Obama supporters know it will cost money. Let's free up $10/billion month from Iraq, cut spending at the DoD, and spend it elsewhere.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
No shit, pledges cost money?

I thought his health care plan would be free, donated by our good friends in the drug and insurance industries :laugh:

Obama supporters know it will cost money. Let's free up $10/billion month from Iraq, cut spending at the DoD, and spend it elsewhere.

ie.

Continue spending on social programs instead of removing the debt/deficit

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Continue spending on social programs instead of removing the debt/deficit

I take it you support a candidate who isn't proposing that?

 

[Butterbean]

Obama's numbers never added up and now he and Biden cant even keep them straight as the "limit" has been given as 250k, 200k 150k. I see Obama's little calculators all over the web urging people to compute their tax cut and I see its just an attempt to buy people off. Obama's whole shtick is to promise goodies to everyone while pretending a small and mysterious minority of "rich" people would pay for it. Keep in mind the costs of some of his programs dont even get discussed because they are keep under the covers. One item is the "volunteer" force he wants to be equal to military:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

That was in his speech from around July 4 and its on Youtube but the print media edited it out of transcripts printed the following day. If you look at Obama's present volunteer initiatives like "Public Allies" you can see they are just indoctrination efforts with promises of college education thrown in. Its weird non-profit, anti social stuff blown up to national scale. Obama is plain scamming voters with his Joe Mainstream facade. As Thomas Sowell said he would be catastrophic for nation.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...spx?id=305420655186700

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama's numbers never added up and now he and Biden cant even keep them straight as the "limit" has been given as 250k, 200k 150k. I see Obama's little calculators all over the web urging people to compute their tax cut and I see its just an attempt to buy people off. Obama's whole shtick is to promise goodies to everyone while pretending a small and mysterious minority of "rich" people would pay for it. Keep in mind the costs of some of his programs dont even get discussed because they are keep under the covers. One item is the "volunteer" force he wants to be equal to military:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

That was in his speech from around July 4 and its on Youtube but the print media edited it out of transcripts printed the following day. If you look at Obama's present volunteer initiatives like "Public Allies" you can see they are just indoctrination efforts with promises of college education thrown in. Its weird non-profit, anti social stuff blown up to national scale. Obama is plain scamming voters with his Joe Mainstream facade. As Thomas Sowell said he would be catastrophic for nation.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...spx?id=305420655186700

Only you could manage to twist someone words so badly and cower beneath the veil of secrecy only you can see in Obama's plans.

 

[Ozoned]

Obama said he's not at all comfortable with the political game of getting and staying elected, of raising money in backroom deals and manipulating an electable image

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Continue spending on social programs instead of removing the debt/deficit

I take it you support a candidate who isn't proposing that?

You can either take money that is not there and give handouts to replace what was being spend in Iraq.

Or you can stop spending that amount period; therefore no longer incurring more of the debt.
That strengthens the dollar and also in following years allows money to be used for things other than paying interest of the borrowed money.

And maybe raising taxes, to actually start paying down some of the debt once the economy starts to turn around.

People have been complaining about the money being spent for Iraq will end up being paid by the grandkids.
Continuing to spend the same amount of money will then force bill on the great grandkids.

Is this just a monkey see, monkey do situation.
Because the Rep spent money that we did not have, does that justify the Dems to do the same thing?
Break the cycle and spend what comes in, not what is desired to please(buy) people.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama's numbers never added up and now he and Biden cant even keep them straight as the "limit" has been given as 250k, 200k 150k. I see Obama's little calculators all over the web urging people to compute their tax cut and I see its just an attempt to buy people off. Obama's whole shtick is to promise goodies to everyone while pretending a small and mysterious minority of "rich" people would pay for it. Keep in mind the costs of some of his programs dont even get discussed because they are keep under the covers. One item is the "volunteer" force he wants to be equal to military:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

That was in his speech from around July 4 and its on Youtube but the print media edited it out of transcripts printed the following day. If you look at Obama's present volunteer initiatives like "Public Allies" you can see they are just indoctrination efforts with promises of college education thrown in. Its weird non-profit, anti social stuff blown up to national scale. Obama is plain scamming voters with his Joe Mainstream facade. As Thomas Sowell said he would be catastrophic for nation.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...spx?id=305420655186700

Well, I guess Jan. 20, 2009 is Doomsday for you then.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Obama's campaign has been fueled by SMALL DONORS more than anyone else. He's indebted to the people of America first and foremost. That is why he will be IMHO a once-in-a-generation President.