• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House will predict a $1.6 trillion U.S. budget deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, a fresh record and the biggest since World War Two as a share of the economy, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

The grim forecast adds to the challenges facing President Barack Obama, who is emphasizing a message of fiscal discipline but is also seeking stimulus measures to boost the struggling economy in the near term.

Obama's budget proposal, which will be released at 10 a.m. EST on Monday, will predict a narrowing of the deficits to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before they gradually rise back to $1 trillion by the end of the decade, the Capitol Hill source said.


These are NOT "inherited" deficits. This isn't because of TARP, this isn't because of the "stimulus" package. But woo-hoo! It'll get "down" to $700 billion by 2013!
 
These are NOT "inherited" deficits.

Evidence?

Harshaw said:
This isn't because of TARP, this isn't because of the "stimulus" package. But woo-hoo! It'll get "down" to $700 billion by 2013!

Umm no, it's not because of those things, as we aren't projected to have ANY spending on TARP or stimulus in 2013. It's due to out-of-control health care costs, which existed long before Obama tried to fix them. But good job being a partisan hack and pointing fingers, rather than talk about the actual issue.
 
Evidence?

Umm, how do any previous administration's policies make it into a budget they didn't have anything to do with?


Umm no, it's not because of those things, as we aren't projected to have ANY spending on TARP or stimulus in 2013.

Those were the excuses for the last, $1.3T deficit. They are no longer present.

It's due to out-of-control health care costs, which existed long before Obama tried to fix them. But good job being a partisan hack and pointing fingers, rather than talk about the actual issue.

Right -- out of control health care costs alone account for a $1.2T explosion in the deficit over FY 2008. :roll:
 
Evidence?



Umm no, it's not because of those things, as we aren't projected to have ANY spending on TARP or stimulus in 2013. It's due to out-of-control health care costs, which existed long before Obama tried to fix them. But good job being a partisan hack and pointing fingers, rather than talk about the actual issue.


Will Obama EVER have to own up to his spending?


j-mac
 
Will Obama EVER have to own up to his spending?


j-mac

No. As a matter of fact, I envision Obama and Bush raising a glass together. LOL.
 
Umm no, it's not because of those things, as we aren't projected to have ANY spending on TARP or stimulus in 2013. It's due to out-of-control health care costs....
Show this to be true.
You can start by citing total federal outlays for health care and how these outlays exceed the associated revenues.


In just two years, The Obama will run up 2/3 the total deficit we saw under GWB -- and the partisan hacks will find every excuse imagineable for it.
 
Last edited:
No. As a matter of fact, I envision Obama and Bush raising a glass together. LOL.


At this rate Obama is making repub, and Bush spending look like a 12 year olds allowance.


j-mac
 
Umm, how do any previous administration's policies make it into a budget they didn't have anything to do with?

Oh, so you're saying everything is Obama's fault if the spending was established in previous years and Obama doesn't ELIMINATE it?

Harshaw said:
Those were the excuses for the last, $1.3T deficit. They are no longer present.

The major reason for the explosive LONG-TERM deficits (as opposed to short-term measures like TARP/stimulus) over the next 10 years are the rising costs of entitlement spending. Social security is on a relatively manageable track; the two big culprits are Medicare and Medicaid. If we don't get the spending for those under control, any other token spending reductions will matter very little.

Harshaw said:
Right -- out of control health care costs alone account for a $1.2T explosion in the deficit over FY 2008. :roll:

Over FY 2008? Huh? Obama wasn't president in 2008, and besides, you were talking about the NEXT ten years. When you figure out if you want to address the topic of your own thread, let me know. :2wave:
 
The major reason for the explosive LONG-TERM deficits (as opposed to short-term measures like TARP/stimulus) over the next 10 years are the rising costs of entitlement spending. Social security is on a relatively manageable track; the two big culprits are Medicare and Medicaid. If we don't get the spending for those under control, any other token spending reductions will matter very little.
None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, the projection for the deficit for the the NEXT fiscal year.

But, I'm glad to see you're on the 'the only meaningful way to reduce decifits is to address the runaway spending on entitlements'' bandwagos. Some of us have been here for decades.
 
Umm, how do any previous administration's policies make it into a budget they didn't have anything to do with?

Seriously, Harshaw?

Come on, man, you've taken some economics courses, right?

Your own article answers that for you:

The recession, which began in December 2007, also worsened the fiscal picture by depressing government revenues while forcing up spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs.

How would you strike a balance between long-term deficit reduction and dealing with unemployment?

**tax credits to encourage business hiring (supply-side)
**tax breaks for middle class families (Keynesian)
**eliminate capital gains tax on small business investments (supply-side)

Obama seems to be taking a somewhat mixed approached, moving toward center, taking some Republican tax incentive ideas while encouraging middle class consumption of goods and services.
 
Seriously, Harshaw?
Come on, man, you've taken some economics courses, right?
Your own article answers that for you:
Really?
The recession, which began in December 2007, also worsened the fiscal picture by depressing government revenues while forcing up spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs
Which of these things were Bush administration policies that The Obama was forced to continue to spend money on?
 
Seriously, Harshaw?

Come on, man, you've taken some economics courses, right?

Your own article answers that for you:



How would you strike a balance between long-term deficit reduction and dealing with unemployment?

**tax credits to encourage business hiring (supply-side)
**tax breaks for middle class families (Keynesian)
**eliminate capital gains tax on small business investments (supply-side)

Obama seems to be taking a somewhat mixed approached, moving toward center, taking some Republican tax incentive ideas while encouraging middle class consumption of goods and services.

No recession -- or depression -- has ever required deficits of this magnitude. And look at the projections -- no lower than $700 billion and back up to a trillion by the end of the decade.

Is unemployment going to stretch out for that long? Does Obama think it is?

Is the recession going to last the entirety of Obama's term? Does Obama think it will?

So, we've got you blaming unemployment spending; we've got Kandahar blaming health care costs.

But the truth is, while we've had recessions as bad as, and worse, than this one, with unemployment as high, or higher, but we've never had deficits like this before.

Look, I'm not blind to TARP, to the "stimulus," and so forth; I didn't agree with them, but I understand how they contributed to FY 2009's $1.3T deficit.

But that's not an issue anymore. This is just "the budget." And it's going to stay obscene throughout the entire projected period.

(See, too, my post in the polls where the Democrats shot down an amendment requiring the use of unused and repaid TARP funds to service the deficit.)
 
Oh, so you're saying everything is Obama's fault if the spending was established in previous years and Obama doesn't ELIMINATE it?

They never required deficits of that size before now. Are you saying the total budget itself hasn't grown?


The major reason for the explosive LONG-TERM deficits (as opposed to short-term measures like TARP/stimulus) over the next 10 years are the rising costs of entitlement spending. Social security is on a relatively manageable track; the two big culprits are Medicare and Medicaid. If we don't get the spending for those under control, any other token spending reductions will matter very little.

Well, apparently, there is no plan to get them under control, looking at the budgetary projection over the next decade.


Over FY 2008? Huh? Obama wasn't president in 2008, and besides, you were talking about the NEXT ten years.

Yeah, over FY 2008, the last year with no TARP, no real "stimulus," a "regular" budget. It doesn't matter who was President when we're talking about a baseline.

You say the massive increase is because of health care. In order for that to be true, it will have had to explode $1.2T in two years.


When you figure out if you want to address the topic of your own thread, let me know. :2wave:

How juvenile. :roll: Being the one who created the topic, I'm pretty sure I know if I'm discussing it or not.
 
Evidence?

Easy.

They're the deficits for least year (hint: The Messiah pushed TARP and the Stimulus Porkulus, not Bush), and the deficit for this year (Hint: The Messiah is president, sort of).
 
How would you strike a balance between long-term deficit reduction and dealing with unemployment?

Start by obeying the Constitution, end by cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth and shrinking government back to where it belongs.
 
At this point I'm pretty much convinced that Obama will be a one-term president. This only strengthens my conviction.
 
**tax credits to encourage business hiring (supply-side)
**tax breaks for middle class families (Keynesian)
**eliminate capital gains tax on small business investments (supply-side)

Obama seems to be taking a somewhat mixed approached, moving toward center, taking some Republican tax incentive ideas while encouraging middle class consumption of goods and services.

He's taken on some token supply-side ideas, but overall his approach has been overwhelmingly Keynesian.
 
He's taken on some token supply-side ideas, but overall his approach has been overwhelmingly Keynesian.

He's a "progressive", which means he's not above lying his skinny ass off to promote his agenda of elitist control of a formerly free nation.

Smoke, and don't forget the mirrors, naturally of the circus type, are Obama's game, especially since he got his ass whupped in three elections in a row.

The Messiah doesn't believe He can fool all the people all the time, but He does believe he can fool them until November.
 
At this point I'm pretty much convinced that Obama will be a one-term president. This only strengthens my conviction.

Well, you know, he said, not four days ago, that he'd rather be a "really good" one-term President than a mediocre two-term President.

Balancing the budget would probably hurt him politically, particularly with his base, and he might lose them all in 2012 because of it. But it would be consistent with what he said.
 
Balancing the budget would probably hurt him politically, particularly with his base, and he might lose them all in 2012 because of it. But it would be consistent with what he said.

What makes you think Obama's base wouldn't want to balance the budget? Many Clinton supporters were thrilled when he and the GOP balanced the budget.

How would it hurt Obama "politically" to balance the budget? Almost all moderates, independents, Libertarians, Blue Dog Dems and certainly conservatives want a balanced budget. How would balancing the budget be bad for Obama?
 
None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, the projection for the deficit for the the NEXT fiscal year.

The topic of the thread was not merely the next fiscal year, which you would know if you read more than the first sentence of the OP.

Goobieman said:
But, I'm glad to see you're on the 'the only meaningful way to reduce decifits is to address the runaway spending on entitlements'' bandwagos. Some of us have been here for decades.

Controlling the spiraling costs for health care is the single biggest financial challenge our federal government faces.
 
No recession -- or depression -- has ever required deficits of this magnitude.

The Great Depression certainly required deficits of this magnitude. We didn't actually GET deficits of this magnitude (which was part of the problem), but it required deficits of this magnitude and then some.

Harshaw said:
And look at the projections -- no lower than $700 billion and back up to a trillion by the end of the decade.

Is unemployment going to stretch out for that long? Does Obama think it is?

Is the recession going to last the entirety of Obama's term? Does Obama think it will?

Obviously not, which should indicate a structural problem in our nation's finances as opposed to a short-term crisis.

Harshaw said:
So, we've got you blaming unemployment spending; we've got Kandahar blaming health care costs.

"Blaming" health care costs? Uhh I still haven't quite figured out to what YOU attribute the high future deficits (other than Obama personally), but this isn't a matter where I have my opinion and you have your opinion and both are equally valid. The biggest long-term financial problem facing our government is entitlement spending: Specifically Medicare and Medicaid. That is a fact.

Harshaw said:
But the truth is, while we've had recessions as bad as, and worse, than this one, with unemployment as high, or higher, but we've never had deficits like this before.

What's your point?

Harshaw said:
Look, I'm not blind to TARP, to the "stimulus," and so forth; I didn't agree with them, but I understand how they contributed to FY 2009's $1.3T deficit.

But that's not an issue anymore. This is just "the budget." And it's going to stay obscene throughout the entire projected period.

So you don't blame TARP/stimulus for the long-term deficit...you don't blame health care costs...you don't blame unemployment...you don't blame discretionary spending instituted prior to Obama's inauguration. What exactly DO you think is the cause? Do you have any thoughts whatsoever on the actual policies at stake here, or is your only thought "zomg obama sux lol"?
 
The topic of the thread was not merely the next fiscal year, which you would know if you read more than the first sentence of the OP.
So you agree that the issue you brought up does nothing to expain away The Obama's $1.6T deficit projected for FY2011.

Controlling the spiraling costs for health care is the single biggest financial challenge our federal government faces.
Like I said -- welcome to the wagon.
 
Well, apparently, there is no plan to get them under control, looking at the budgetary projection over the next decade.

You misunderstand how budgetary projections work. They NEVER assume a plan to change things until it's already become law. Budgetary projections assume that nothing changes in terms of policy.

Harshaw said:
Yeah, over FY 2008, the last year with no TARP, no real "stimulus," a "regular" budget. It doesn't matter who was President when we're talking about a baseline.

Actually we did have some stimulus in 2008 and it was far from a regular year, but to address your point:

Harshaw said:
You say the massive increase is because of health care. In order for that to be true, it will have had to explode $1.2T in two years.

Once again you are conflating short-term deficits with long-term deficits. Here you are complaining about the short-term deficit again, which was caused by nasty economic conditions.

The long-term deficit (i.e. those numbers you are citing over the next ten years) is a completely separate issue with completely separate causes: Specifically health care costs.
 
Controlling the spiraling costs for health care is the single biggest financial challenge our federal government faces.

oh, that's easy enough.

The Constitution does not allow the federal government to do anything about "health care", ergo, the government should spend ZERO dollars on "health care" and the government's liability for same will be ZERO, and thus "health care" will not contribute to the federal government's deficit and the non-existent problem is solved.
 
Back
Top Bottom