The deficit is going down
 

The budget deficit is going down under Obama. Yes after all the off budget crap President Cheney kept off the books like a couple of unfunded protracted wars and a prescription drug program were added into the "true deficit" that Muslim, Hitleresqe, Kenyan, commie, fascist, oreo, half breed seems to be lowering the budget deficit just like that hillbilly criminal from Arkensaw did.

Yep the deficit is going down according to the CBO. Notice historically it goes down under Democrats and up under Republicans. There is a reason why. Google the Jude Wanniski "two santa claus" theory. Never mind, I did it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachm...1&d=1332278456

But wait a minute, I know Obama spent money like a drunken sailor, and raised my taxes taxes to pay for it. That sumabitch. I wondered how he did it.

Really So************************t is a censored word here. That would be sosialist.

Oh, the "Alternative Fiscal scenario is if Obama losses to Mittens or that Opus Dei, C street freak Saintorum.

I must strenuously object to the Oreo epithet.;) That word is much worse than calling a brother a mutha fucka.

Other than that, you're right! Bad day for the assholes who've tried their best to tank the economy for their selfish political purposes.:mad:

Social-ist is censored because ciali-s is contained in the word. Spammers favorite potion.:cool:

Bwahahah, That is priceless.:D

Yeah, oreo is a little over the top. But I heard it on an online interview of potential Mississippi voters who despise Obama. At least I left "darky out.:rolleyes:

Nooooooo! Make it go away! If the numbers start looking better.......You know what THAT means!

Dave

Interesting graph, do you have a link?

Chas

I got it of a comments post somewhere. It is on the OMB's website. I made sure it was real.

Found the link. http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/20...t-deficit.html

Crushing the Budget Deficit:


CBO says Obama's latest budget would add $3.5 trillion in deficits through 2022

By Erik Wasson - 03/16/12 10:09 AM ET


President Obama’s 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the nonpartisan office.

The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...cits-cbo-finds

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...cits-cbo-finds

That's OK Paul Ryan's proposal will increase the deficit by 4 trillion. Oh but it will give the Koch brothers a really big tax break.

Once again the GOP shows the rest of U.S. their tax plan, Take from the poor to give to the rich!

For them to show their hand this strong in a Presidential year ether shows how strong they feel or to motivate the base to turnout. The fear I have is if the Republican party wins control over all four branches of government the power grab that will happen.

Barney

I agree, made my day, tears of joy.
cial-is is inside every social-ist. BWAH HAH HAH!

I am a bit concerned that Oreo doesn't become a bad word. They are about the only packaged cookie that's worth a shit IMHO. I stick mine on a fork and submerge in milk until all bubbles stop. Guarantees full saturation of the cookie exterior prior to consumption.

I got news for ya buddy, the Republicans are figuring on taking over all FIVE branches of the government!!!

Chas

What are the 5 branches Chas?

The funniest slang I ever heard referencing black folks was from an old Italian lady I knew years ago. She would say in a whisper, 'the darker ones' :)

Pete

The four I was talking about are the three branches of government Legislative, Executive, Judicial and adding the fourth is sometimes used to refer to either the media (the "fourth estate"), or lobbyists and special interest groups. I was referring to lobbyists in my last post.

So if you wanted to separate those two then five could be used also.


Barney

Decreased gov't spending (forced by the evil Reps) + increased tax receipts = Obama is great :D

Pete

Or a stimulus plan that kept the economy from going completely into the tank and government receipts shrinking more than the amount of the stimulus.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's more like it.

Dave

You do realize that that graph is not a true picture of the deficit. It was, in effect, sculpted to put forth a political position by its input data. One can come up with all sorts of of different scenarios by changing hypothetical input parameters. Even given that graph, consider what happens beyond 2017 under current Obama policy. I wonder what they're using as a yearly economic growth factor in their model?

Here's the parameters I put forth;

I see homes selling again. I know people who have changed jobs in under a month. I know people, even in Ohio, who were unemployed long term who have all gone back to work. All of my investments, both 401ks and the Roth IRA are up.

The rest is all just someone trying to paint either a rosy, or a dire picture to serve some sort of political end.

I also know that if it's still crappy in California, then that's Californias problem. Not mine.

That's my data.

Dave

Folks - any deficit reduction number has to be treated with a healthy amount of skepticism regardless of the occupant of the oval office or the composition of the house and senate. The CBO issues reports based on a set of parameters / assumptions that are requested by the individual congressperson or committee that requests the report. This doesn't mean that the CBO report reflects reality. It simply means that, if certain assumptions are true, then "X will be the result."

The bottom line is this: we're spending more than we're taking in. The scale on which this continues to occur produces a budget deficit the size of which the average individual cannot begin to relate to or comprehend. The annual deficit then further balloons the national debt. The size of the national debt is even further beyond the ability of the average person to comprehend.

Both repubs and dems have shown utter contempt for true fiscal restraint. However, of the two, it seems to fall to the party out of power to champion the issue of fiscal restraint. Once that party assumes power, however, any prior comments about restraint or overtures to same are promptly kicked to the curb in favor of consolidating political power.

Shame on all of us for allowing this to continue unabated for so long.

Nicely stated Whell. Sadly, both parties partake in deficit spending. I'd love to see a fiscally conservative party develop. The idiotic social issues that both parties pander to is just misdirection IMHO.

Fiscal policy relates to both revenues and expenditures does it not? Then why is the only issue raised here the level of spending? How does fiscal sanity correlate to a pledge to raise no taxes, including refusing to consider the elimination of tax credits?

Regards,

D-Ray

How about focusing on ways to generate more revenue? What about finding ways to make more money rather than cut? Or have we grown too lazy for that? How about serious cutting of waste and corruption within our institutions instead of simply hacking them off or reducing benefits? Why don't we just stop trying to portray our elderly as "freeloaders"? Is there anything in the Ryan budget about dealing wth the real "welfare" freeloaders? I doubt it. Oh no, instead we focus on giving more to those who have no need of it, at the expense of those on fixed incomes.

But, then, hasn't that been the plan all along?

Dave

Cutting the size of government IS a way to generate more revenue. Cutting taxes IS how to make more money. Simply hacking off many of these institutions IS serious waste cutting. Nobody's portraying Granny as a freeloader. The portrayal is of conservatives throwing her over a cliff.

Are we still relying on the Laffer curve?

Regards,

D-Ray

Don't need a curve, it's common sense. Smaller government means less debt so they don't have to print as much money, devaluing the dollar. Also means less regulation which spurs business growth.
At least with private enterprise there's some competition over who's gonna try to screw ya.

Then, what's up with the Ryan plan to eliminate Medicare? Is that not a program for the elderly? Are we planning to replace it with anything? The language I hear coming from the right, for the last thirty years, paints anyone who recieves anything from the government as a "freeloader" even when they paid into it, or worked for it.

Am I wrong in that?

Dave

I think it's a political characterization to imply that the average conservative would deny citizens benefits they have paid for. That said, the government is the worst bank there is. I'm all for phasing these programs out so people can make free decisions in a competitive market about how to finance retirement and healthcare.
I try to be realistic myself. If it goes to the government, the union, or my wife, I never expect to see a penny of it again.

Face it Don, we're not talking about screwing in a light bulb...and I've seen a lot of very intelligent people turn that into an exercise in FUBAR.

The level of deficit spending that we are currently engaged in, and are projected to be engaged in, deserve a certain level of scrutiny. I believe that in the last week either Little Timmy or Helicopter Ben came out and admitted that their policies of low interest rates combined with the weak dollar are killing savers and those on fixed incomes.

Shit, my dog could have told them that. Besides, they knew it all along, it's just reached the point that they have to admit to it or lose all credibility.

Economics isn't a fixed science. Too many variables, and too many means to respond to any situation.

I'm beginning to view economists as frogs. Their thinking is more of a reactionary nature as opposed to a constructive nature.

Poke 'em with a stick and they'll hop. Shoot 'em in the head and they'll hop halfway out into the pond. The rest of the time they sit there all glassy eyed waiting for something to come along that will fit in their mouth.

And since we're long beyond taxation as being the means to fund the government, it has become no more than the means to reward you friends and control behavior.

Chas

Go easy on your wife, she can't be THAT bad.

Chas

I'm not familiar with the Ryan plan. It really doesn't matter what his plan is at this moment.

The fact that someone is willing to touch the 3rd rail of politics is long overdue.

In a way, the Democrats deserve some credit for having the guts to address healthcare with PPACA, although they handled it like the dumbest, shade tree mechanic in existence.

Had they have done it right, they and Obama would be guaranteed reelection. The Republicans couldn't even block what they did, and they for sure couldn't have blocked them if they had a plan which gathered public support.

Just some thoughts,

Chas

What I have seen from family experience with Medicare and Tricare is that they in effect have been given a cut in benefits and pay have not made it back up. But on the other hand those who can already afford any increases in the costs of living and healthcare have been getting their taxes cut.




Barney

I think it's an accurate description of conservatives to say they think others are "stealing" from them, if one red cent of their money ends up in anyone elses pocket by any means, especially if it is by taxation. If you want to make copper wire, drop a penny at the Republican Convention.

People already have the ability to choose retirement and healthcare plans in the freemarket. However, the only thing more unstable and unreliable than the government is the so-called freemarket. This is why social safety nets are necessary and why they must be kept as separate from the freemarket as possible. This was the lesson your party failed to learn from the great depression. And the reason why their ideas set us, the common folk, up for disaster. We've already had that system once before. It didn't work. The market tanked, people starved. The reason Republicans want to kill the social safety nets and give more tax cuts to the wealthy, (Not us.), is because that's what they get paid to do.

Isn't it becoming more obvious by the day?

Dave

We still want to refute an entire idea with 1/2 the argument?

It is about revenue, and it is about spending. Our government is currently being dishonest about both. They understate revenues, they refer to a "loan" as revenue for purposes of declaring a balanced budget while having zero intention of making payments on the loan principle. They declare a budget plan a success if if fixes a current problem 6 to 8 years hence.

If we can't agree on fundamental principles of economics when we discuss government financing, then the argument is lost before it starts between us, and the winner is the the guy in Washington who keeps us distracted with an argument while he continues to steal us blind.

So, let's try some fundamental principles, at least one to start with.

When a particular activity is penalized do you get more or less of that activity?

When a particular activity is subsidized, do you get more or less of that activity?

The answer, of course, is that subsidies increase the occurrence of an activity, while penalties decrease it.

Are taxes a penalty or a subsidy when engaging in an activity? They are, of course, a penalty.

So, which do you think would be the best fuel for economic activity: an increase or decrease in the penalty? If we can agree that a reduction in penalty, or subsidy, increases the likelihood that a particular activity will be repeated, then should the goal of encouraging economic growth focus on increasing subsidy or increasing penalty? Hopefully, we're still on the same page at this point, and can a agree that a subsidy encourages growth.

So, if the economic value of producing one widget is $1.00, and the widget is currently taxed at 50%, the government takes home $0.50. While, on its face, the government might be satisfied with retaining that $0.50, that $0.50 must also abide by the fundamental principles of economics.

If the government decided to test the Laffer curve, and drop tax (penalty) on producing that widget to $0.40, the widget will now cost $1.40 rather than a $1.50 in the marketplace. The law of supply and demand suggest that the widgets demand level will increase at the lower price point. We now have to produce more widgets to meet demand.

Increasing productive output has a whole host of positive effects beyond just the production of the widget. Certainly Widget Inc. will now be operating with potentially increased efficiency / capacity to produce more widgets. Widget Inc will be buying more raw materials to make more widgets, they may have to add to the workforce to increase demand, converting capital into product and wages.

Let's say the demand in creases by 50%: Widget incorporated must sell 1.5 widgets for every one widget that they sold previously. Well, the government used to collect $0.50 for each widget sold, now they're collecting $.40 for each widget, but more widgets are being sold. At a 50% increase in demand, that's $0.40 on the first widget sold, and an extra $0.20 on the additional 1/2 widget sold due to increased demand. So, now the government is collecting $0.60 when it used to collect $0.50.

You can start to put other names on this: Laffer curve, Reaganomics, whatever. Those names refer to government economic policies and budget law: Of course, the old joke about not wanting to see either sausage or laws get made has to apply here as well. But in a classic economic sense, the principles are sound.

The reverse is also true. If you increase the penalty for widget production, you will get less widgets. If you tax an activity, you will get less of it, and therefore antcipated revenue from the tax increase will fall as well (tax policy projections are typically based on an assumption of static demand, which doesn't exist in economics).

Therefore, making bold economic projections about balancing the budget by increasing taxes (whether its just on the "1%" or more broad-based) is Fantasyland to me. Further, those folks in the "1%" who have the means to do so will be particularly adept at changing their tax strategy to avoid a tax. Its the 99% for don't have the means - or the expert tax advice - who typically become collateral damage when Washington plays with tax policy.

Of course, if we can't agree on the application of fundamental economic principles in these discussions, then what's the point?

How much more will the widgets cost when the manufacturer has build it's own school to educate it workers, build its own infrastructure to transport it's product and receive its supplies, hire private security to protect its plant, hire mercenaries to protect the shipping lanes for any products it might export, and pay private contractors for every other government service that it takes for granted. Or we could look at the tax as part of the cost of doing business instead of a penalty.

Regards,

D-Ray

Really? WTF do you know about the real estate game besides doing flips during bubbles?
You have a license...correct?

Doesn't matter how we "look at it" when we have no control over how its spent, what's its spent on, or whether or not it ever goes towards its stated purpose. The penalty or subsidy simply "is".

Also, if you're going down that road, then I'd offer this:

If the tax is really a "cost of doing business", then the business should be able to allocate those costs exactly. But can you confirm for me that the there is a dollar for dollar accounting of the money that the business spends in profit taxes, property taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, capital gain taxes, transportation fees/taxes, asset taxes, license fees, etc. against those direct expenses? If not, and it the business pays more in taxes then it gets back in services (very, very likely the case), isn't this a subsidy? And who is the beneficiary of that subsidy? And what activity is stimulated with that subsidy?

Of course "pay has not made it back up". That's the whole idea. Daddy Warbucks wants his tax cut. He wants us little pissants to stop oppressing him. We can't give it to him if we compensate like that, the cuts have to be real. You see, the man with the knife at your throat doesn't care how you make up for the money he took, that's your problem. Go out and get a third job and work until you die if you have to. Praise be to Ayn Rand, and pass the collection plate Brother Breitbart. The Plutocracy won't be satisfied with a mere pittance, we must be generous and humble in our submission.

The unregulated free market has shown over and over again that, given the freedom to do what they want, they will always cut their own throat for some short term gain.