Obama to hike 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

[celticlord]

Obama to hike 10-year deficit to $9 trillion | U.S. | Reuters

The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to roughly $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said the official, who is familiar with the plans.

"Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

His parting shot before taking off for two weeks: more debt.

Rather nice of him to admit that the CBO had a better grasp of his shopaholism than his own people.

And what will be his solution to all this debt? Why, more spending of course!

 

[American]

The Obamabots will be here soon.

 

[apdst]

The Obamabots will be here soon.

Haven't the Obamabots been telling us the deficit is already at 10 trillion?

 

[Don't Tase Me Bro]

Haven't the Obamabots been telling us the deficit is already at 10 trillion?

If they have they lied. It's more than that.

 

[Don't Tase Me Bro]

This is astounding. All the bitching these people did about Bush's spending and he was a penny pincher compared to this ass clown we have in their now that they are supporting. I don't think people truly understand what a very dark path we are headed down and what kind of catastrophe we are going to be faced with when the IOUs run out.

 

[American]

This is astounding. All the bitching these people did about Bush's spending and he was a penny pincher compared to this ass clown we have in their now that they are supporting. I don't think people truly understand what a very dark path we are headed down and what kind of catastrophe we are going to be faced with when the IOUs run out.

This is COMPLETELY different, he has a (D) behind his name. :mrgreen:

 

[The_Limt]

I don't think people truly understand what a very dark path we are headed down and what kind of catastrophe we are going to be faced with when the IOUs run out.

A dark path?

Not really. It has more to do with practicality than partisanship.

TARP was needed. Both Dems and GOP during the campaign agreed. The Banks could not under any circumstances be allowed to fail.

The business community aggresively lobbied Congress for TARP. They knew and understood the peril the US faced more than most.

It had to be done, much the same way a collapsed bridge over a very important commerical road has to be re-constructed.

The stimulus package?

Again, another round of monetary infusion that was needed.

 

[Don't Tase Me Bro]

A dark path?

Not really.

TARP was needed. Both Dems and GOP during the campaign agreed.

The stimulus package?

Again, another round of infusion that was needed.

The stimulus package has done absolutely nothing and that's pretty much universally agreed on. The spending problem goes far beyond that and TARP. And yes, we are on a very short road to a dead end, but I don't really expect someone as economically ignorant as you to understand a damn thing about what I'm talking about.

 

[The_Limt]

The stimulus package has done absolutely nothing and that's pretty much universally agreed on. The spending problem goes far beyond that and TARP. And yes, we are on a very short road to a dead end, but I don't really expect someone as economically ignorant as you to understand a damn thing about what I'm talking about.

It is not universally agreed upon that it has done "absolutely nothing."

Not at all.

A lot of experts have different views on the effectiveness of the effort.

The consensus, if you read the record of some of the most prestigious academics, is that the US averted a major financial disaster.

The job numbers will rise, albeit slowly. Its only a matter of time.

As to your insult per "someone as economically ignorant as you to understand a damn thing about what I'm talking about."

It is not interesting and not worth a response.

 

[The Prof]

1. i don't think some of you appreciate how big this news is

2. a TWO TRILLION dollar readjustment in projected debt

3. from 1.708 trillion to 9.0

4. and THAT's according to the WHITE HOUSE

5. it's exactly what cbo and others outside the admin have been saying all along

6. in other words, he's WRONG once more

7. and off by TWO T's, ie, not just a LITTLE BIT

8. the public option, ALREADY DEAD, is now OUTTA THE QUESTION

9. plans to spend an additional $1T to $1.6T for ANY KIND of health care is impossibly unsellable NOW to the conrads, baucuses, mccaskills, dorgans...

10. let alone the dogs, freshmen and gubs

11. he's gonna scare off the LIBS with numbers like these

12. this "adjustment" is based on "spring and summer projections" from cbo

13. do you know what THIS means?

14. the dank, dark DEPRESSION deepens

15. and NO ONE will believe this president anymore

16. he promised to cut the DEFICIT IN HALF

17. if he says it's raining in dc, everyone will have to google it

18. our ability to finance our debt is not "threatened," that's not a strong enough word

19. this is not politics i'm speaking, here, not spin

20. it's SADLY 100% verbatim truth

21. how many decades have you spent studying inside-dc doings?

22. that is, i'm afraid you'll soon see the DISASTROUS effects---economically, politically---of this story

23. is he gonna try to BLAME this on bush, too?

24. or the gop minority in the house?

25. cable tv, insurance companies, the cambridge pd?

26. china and japan MUST demand significantly higher interest rates

27. that's if they even decide to continue to play with us

28. devastatingly dire developments for the bond markets

29. like PHYSICS, like MATH---economic LAW

30. look for frantic efforts to raise taxes, and not just on the rich

31. there aren't enough wealthy among us, they don't have enough money

32. he's gotta go after the middle class

33. a deadly downer, a two trillion ton ankle weight, on economic growth going forward

a very bad day in america

 

[RightinNYC]

Obama to hike 10-year deficit to $9 trillion | U.S. | Reuters

His parting shot before taking off for two weeks: more debt.

Rather nice of him to admit that the CBO had a better grasp of his shopaholism than his own people.

And what will be his solution to all this debt? Why, more spending of course!

Which do you think we'll hear first?

I. "You have absolutely no moral ground to criticize for this, Bush increased the debt by $4T, Obama can do whatever he wants."

or

II. "This isn't Obama's fault, he's just cleaning up Bush's mess by implementing needed spending and is being hurt by the economy. You can't attribute this to him. Now Bush on the other hand, all of his debt was 100% attributable to him."

 

[Kernel Sanders]

"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers."
- Richard Feynman

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Scenario 1: These 10 year deficit predictions are never accurate. They very well could be higher, or most likely they will be lower depending on how strong economic growth is in the next 10 years. Economy starts growing stronger in the next year or two and basically we grow our way to a more sustainable level of deficits.

Scenario 2: Economy never really picks up steam between now and 2012. Thus a Republican is elected then. Like all modern Republicans he or she believes that the cure for deficits is to significantly reduce revenue (tax cuts), while further increasing spending. Usually this comes about by them talking the small government talk and cutting something miniscule that is already grossly underfunded like the National Parks budget, while they significantly increase defense spending. Deficit then gets much worse than the 9 trillion predicted now even if economic growth returns.

Scenario 3: Deficit predictions are much too low, the current uptick in economic growth ends up being the short peak of a W shaped economic contraction, economy contracts severely in 2010, U.S. has difficulty borrowing additional money and thus has few options in terms of economic stimulus, we eventually default on some of our debt and world financial crisis results. In 2012 Ron Paul tells everyone he told us so and gets elected . His campaign is primarily funded by his followers pawning their firearms.

 

[sam_w]

Republicans whining about deficits....ironic.

Let us not forget a couple things here folks, we have not finished paying for Bush's wonderful Iraq war ($3-5 trillion total) and his Medicare reform that went 100% into the red ($1+ trillion)..and these have not even all been accounted for. So keep in mind this debt you are whining about...this is what we are talking about. Bush's rise of $5 trillion is a hell of a lot larger if we honestly add costs to which he merely disguised, lied, and pushed forward.

OMG, but what about Obama's spending.....? Like what so far? The stimulus, well true. Except anyone and everyone knew and agreed we needed stimulus spending. Most honest economists said we need more than $780bn, and never-mind that in a disastrous compromise to Republicans they loaded up a huge portion in worthless tax cuts! You know, those things that Republicans whine about all the time, yet have absolutely 0 effect on stimulating recession (although you might find some economist living in a bunker the past 80 years who has not kept up who will say tax cuts stimulate).

I guess we can also forget that the largest cost to our budget is what now? Medicare you say? Oh that's right, we need to defeat HCR so we can keep that Medicare growing, that nice big socialist health care coverage not a single anti-socialist Republican has the guts to confront. We need to defeat HCR so out healthcare expenditure grows larger that 17% GDP to 20% GDP (getting close to double soon what the next highest nations spends).

So where where all you so called pseudo Fiscal hawks during the 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush? Sorry folks, you are now so bloody discredited it is beyond belief.

The GOP's Misplaced Rage

 

[RightinNYC]

Republicans whining about deficits....ironic.

Let us not forget a couple things here folks, we have not finished paying for Bush's wonderful Iraq war ($3-5 trillion total) and his Medicare reform that went 100% into the red ($1+ trillion)..and these have not even all been accounted for. So keep in mind this debt you are whining about...this is what we are talking about. Bush's rise of $5 trillion is a hell of a lot larger if we honestly add costs to which he merely disguised, lied, and pushed forward.

A combo of I and II. Nice.

OMG, but what about Obama's spending.....? Like what so far? The stimulus, well true. Except anyone and everyone knew and agreed we needed stimulus spending. Most honest economists...

And by "honest" you mean "agree with my political positions."

You know, those things that Republicans whine about all the time, yet have absolutely 0 effect on stimulating recession (although you might find some economist living in a bunker the past 80 years who has not kept up who will say tax cuts stimulate).

This may come as a shock to you, but the main purpose of the federal income tax is not to stimulate the economy. What does it say about where we are as a society that not taking money from people is considered "wasting money"?

I guess we can also forget that the largest cost to our budget is what now? Medicare you say?

No, I actually wouldn't say that, because that's false no matter how you look at it.

If we treat Medicare as on-budget and thus look at total outlays, Medicare is the 3rd largest part of the budget, behind the DoD (even without counting the war or the VA) and Social Security.

If we treat Medicare as off-budget and only look at outlays from general revenue, Medicare is much lower, at around $188b.

 

[Grateful Heart]

It's more disturbing to actually look at the chart. Which is probably why we rarely, if ever, see this chart on the MSM.

:shock:

 

[Realist1]

It's more disturbing to actually look at the chart. Which is probably why we rarely, if ever, see this chart on the MSM.

:shock:

I recommend stocking up on Ammo, and Canned Food. Quickly.

 

[The Prof]

1. doing arithmetic is whining---LOL!

2. "where were you" in 66AD when rome burned?

3. actual outcomes in the out years are likely to perform better than the 10 year projection---LOLOLOL!

4. the gop lost (bad) for a reason

5. where's obama's spending?

6. LOL!

7. his 2010 budget lays out 3.55 trillion, borrowing more than half, 1.845T

8. deficits ACCORDING TO THE WHITE HOUSE are 13.1% (!) of gdp

9. certain keynesian suicide, violently unsustainable

10. via cbo, spending is up 34%, revenues down 15%

11. for comparison, bush's then-record deficit in 2008 was 459 billion, 3.2% of gdp

12. obama's budget 2010 calls for 4.004T in spending and 2.159T in revenue

13. the point---obama's TOXIC numbers are, even as currently configured, based on impossibly ROSY projections

14. to arrive at NINE TRILLION dollars of debt over the next decade, up two full T's, obama relies on growth numbers that are LOL! absurd

15. he assumes gdp will shrink 1.2% in 2009

16. cbo says---minus 3.0

17. obama counts on 3.2% growth in 2011 and 4.0% in 2012

18. LOL!

19. when reality confronts obama's happy face in 18 months or so, HIS deficits will DOUBLE

20. white house projections ALWAYS underestimate the bad, hello

21. obama is also depending on unemployment figures over the next 3 years coming in at 8.1%, 7.9% and 7.1%

22. obama proposes HALF A TRILLION in CUTS to medicare and medicaid

23. this is why seniors are so outraged, just look at the town halls

24. you can't win anything in america politically without solid senior support

25. obama's a fool

AFP: Obama budget deficit seen at record 1.845 trillion dlrs

 

[IceteaGreen]

1. The

2. Prof

3. Writing

4. style

5. is

6. Too

7. difficult

8. to

9. Read

:2razz:

 

[TBone]

:spin:

This is COMPLETELY different, he has a (D) behind his name. :mrgreen:

I laugh at the R's because they put us in this mess with their search for weapons of mass destruction by the clown named GWB.

Did you forget this, or did Rush forget to put this idea in your minds.

 

[TBone]

The Obamabots will be here soon.

Funny how you call them Obamabots. You were the best goose step-per when GW was your leader.

 

[apdst]

Scenario 1: These 10 year deficit predictions are never accurate. They very well could be higher, or most likely they will be lower depending on how strong economic growth is in the next 10 years. Economy starts growing stronger in the next year or two and basically we grow our way to a more sustainable level of deficits.

Scenario 2: Economy never really picks up steam between now and 2012. Thus a Republican is elected then. Like all modern Republicans he or she believes that the cure for deficits is to significantly reduce revenue (tax cuts), while further increasing spending. Usually this comes about by them talking the small government talk and cutting something miniscule that is already grossly underfunded like the National Parks budget, while they significantly increase defense spending. Deficit then gets much worse than the 9 trillion predicted now even if economic growth returns.

Scenario 3: Deficit predictions are much too low, the current uptick in economic growth ends up being the short peak of a W shaped economic contraction, economy contracts severely in 2010, U.S. has difficulty borrowing additional money and thus has few options in terms of economic stimulus, we eventually default on some of our debt and world financial crisis results. In 2012 Ron Paul tells everyone he told us so and gets elected . His campaign is primarily funded by his followers pawning their firearms.

Well, PBO's out in 2012. I think that's already obvious and nothing will prevent that, not even the largest economic boom in US history. I'm not saying that he'll be replaced by a Republican; if there was ever a time for a third party candidate to win, '12 will be it. But, no matter which party it, someone will replace PBO. It wouldn't surprise me to see the DNC endorse a candidate to compete against him.

 

[TOJ]

Well, PBO's out in 2012. I think that's already obvious and nothing will prevent that, not even the largest economic boom in US history. I'm not saying that he'll be replaced by a Republican; if there was ever a time for a third party candidate to win, '12 will be it. But, no matter which party it, someone will replace PBO. It wouldn't surprise me to see the DNC endorse a candidate to compete against him.

The same was said of B.Clinton. You are counting on the US citizenry and they have proven to be a very gullible lot.


.

 

[Agent Ferris]

The stimulus package?

Again, another round of monetary infusion that was needed.

Really? We needed the Obama administration to buy the automotive industry and become its director of the board? Um no that was not needed, what was needed was for the automotive industry to declare bankruptcy in order to put them in a better bargaining position with the unions so that they could become competitive on the global market but considering that the unions and the democratic party are one in the same we couldn't have that now could we?

 

[Agent Ferris]

And what will be his solution to all this debt? Why, more spending of course!

No the answer will be an across the board tax hike; that is, if he wants to continue with his asinine public option for his healthcare reform plans.