Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Bob Sacamano, Aug 26, 2009.
over next decade,
according to Obama Admin
Usually we like articles, links, something. At least give me a chain letter. I'll settle for that.
sorry, your highness
AP sources: $2 trillion higher deficit projected
Higher number over next decade could spell trouble for Obama in Congress
Video: White House
Biden: ‘It was never about him’
Aug. 26: Vice President Joe Biden expresses his distress over the death of Ted Kennedy and discusses the personal connection the senator had with his family, his colleagues and the country.
Matthews: Kennedy was 'quarterback on the Hill'
Obama: Kennedy was 'defender of a dream'
Dispelling health care myths
Explore a 3-D White House
Check out historical info, photos, and panoramic images.
The White House revealed
An exclusive peek into Obama's world.
updated 6:29 p.m. ET, Fri., Aug 21, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration expects the federal deficit over the next decade to be $2 trillion bigger than previously estimated, White House officials said Friday, a setback for a president already facing a Congress and public wary over spending.
The new projection, to be announced on Tuesday, is for a cumulative 2010-2019 deficit of $9 trillion instead of the $7 trillion previously estimated. The new figure reflects slumping revenues from a worse economic picture than was expected earlier this year. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity ahead of next week's announcement.
Ten-year forecasts are volatile figures subject to change over time. But the higher number will likely create political difficulties for President Barack Obama in Congress and could create anxiety with foreign buyers of U.S. debt.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
Earlier this week, the White House revealed that it expects a budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to be nearly $1.6 trillion. That figure was lower than initially projected because the White House scratched out $250 billion that it had initially added to the budget as a bank rescue contingency. The administration ultimately did not ask Congress for that money.
Still that number, together with the 10-year projection, represents a huge obstacle for an administration trying to undertake massive policy overhauls in health care and the environment.
Forced to raise taxes?
Economists predict a slow recovery from the recession, further testing Obama's goal of cutting the deficit to $512 billion in 2013. Even as he seeks higher revenues to pay for new climate change and health care measures, the president could face pressure to increase revenues or make deep spending cuts to tame the deficit.
Earlier long-term estimates released in February and May relied on now-outdated projections of economic growth. Then, the White House predicted the economy would shrink by 1.2 percent this year, but the economy shrank 6.4 percent in the first quarter, the worst in nearly three decades.
Click for related content
Bernanke: Economy is on cusp of recovery
Rise of the super-rich hits sobering wall
In its earlier projections, the White House said the deficit would be manageable if it slides to 3 percent of gross domestic product. Earlier projections barely met that standard — even after relying on optimistic assumptions like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing $50 billion a year instead of the $130 billion budgeted for 2010.
Now, the deficits could easily exceed 4 percent of GDP, even after cost-cutting efforts or new revenues claimed in Obama's budget.
Such deficits have always prompted Congress and the White House to take politically painful steps to curb them, such as former President Bill Clinton's tax-heavy 1993 deficit reduction plan. A companion effort by Obama could force him to break his promise to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year.
Or even a simple google search
Increasing deficit is borderline becoming old news.
Or your link works. Thanks.
But it was a fantastic chip when it was used as a negative for the previous administration, and a purpose for voting in the current.
I would have thought lying politicians was old news also, but alas, I guess it's not to be. Apparently the idea of 'hope' is enough to get some excited to maintain the status quo.
I actually didn't hear the deficit discussed that much during the campaign. But it is interesting the only time conservatives care about it is during a Democratic administration during an economic crisis when deficit spending becomes necessary.
Agreed. I meant it as this administration is screwing things up so badly...it's becoming accepted and people are tired caring about it. Not that it's necessarily happening, but we are going in that direction.
The previous admin was blasted for 'mortgaging our future to the Chinese' in just about every speech. The topic of the economy was far too good to go unspoken and taken advantage of.
I have no problem blaming the FA for it's free spending frenzy, just as I have no problem calling the current on to task for it's obvious line of BS and the people who really thought this new clown would be much different than the old clown in that regard.
Despite the rhetoric, a President doesn't create jobs, provide ingenuity or stimulate commerce, therefore he has little control over the economy, unless of course he is taxing the **** out if it or relocating money from our treasury for pet projects.
I still don't recall that. I recall him talking about the economy a lot. Don't recall too many speeches on the deficit though.
The spending is being done in a controlled measured way. Frenzy wouldn't be a correct adjective. And we could easily start paying down the deficit when the economy starts getting better. Now is not the time. Our deficit is by no means insurmountable. during WWII our deficit was 109% of our GDP, and our economy didn't implode. So I think conservatives need to chill out with all of this end of the world talk.
A quick Google search is netting me more current aspects of it (including this one where Obama pretty plainly blames the FA for it Link, and that's fine with me), so I'll look later if I get the time, to provide what I'm referring to.
I don't know one way or the other, whether or not it's insurmountable, what I'm talking about is the political BS served up time and again and people actually believing it. It's endemic of our generation, regardless of their allegiance to a party. Political fan boys.
I used that spending adjective for the Bush administration, nor the current one.
If people want to complain about what the President and his admin are doing it's their right and their lot in life and don't really need to chill out. It happened during the previous admin, with the doom and gloom; the coin has flipped and it's happening with this one.
Second verse, same as the first; just a minor key change.
It is a nasty cancer though.
That is a poor example. That is after the campaign was over, and in the same breath he said his stimulus would be around 800 billion. Difference between him and bush is we are in a recession and we need to spend money. During the bubble period there was no need for the budget deficit Bush created. Once a sustained recover takes hold, probably after next year, then Obama will start focusing on bringing down the deficit.
Its fine to complain. That is well within your right. Although saying that the world is coming to an end and we are going to become the Weimar Republic is ridiculous.
We are not talking about a 20% or so increase over Bush and previous congress' budget deficit's....we are talking 15X worse than that...nearly 300% increase by Obama and this congress.
NIGHT AND DAY....mountain vs molehill or whatever you choose to call it. They are not even comparable.
I take it Rat, that you did not frequent this forum at that time?
Yeah, and I already stated it was all I could find quickly.
Stop defending Obama's plan to save the economy to me, I don't care.
All of the doom and gloom is ridiculous and I can provide the yang of the past 8 years to this yin , but it appears you'd rather defend Obama and provide stock answers as though you're talking to a 'conservative' who is complaining.
I can't find anyone saying the world is going to end in this small instance though.
So is IOZ the rat with a new name?
I think you can change the word IS to WAS and you might be on to something.