CBO estimates $10,000,000,000,000 deficit

[Toro]

And what does the CBO identify as the main culprit in the increase in deficits?

Tax cuts! Particularly, extending the Bush tax cuts!

The President's policy proposals mostly affect the revenue side of the budget. Those proposals would reduce revenues, compared with CBO's baseline projections, in every year of the coming decade—for a total reduction of about 6 percent over the 2012–2021 period. ...

Of the various initiatives that the President is proposing, tax provisions would have by far the largest budgetary impact. The 2010 tax act (officially the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312) extended through December 2012 many of the tax reductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The President proposes to extend those reductions permanently, with some modifications, and to permanently index for inflation the amounts of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), starting at their 2011 levels. In addition, the President proposes that, beginning in January 2013, estate and gift taxes return permanently to the rates and exemption levels that were in effect in calendar year 2009. Those policies would reduce tax revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of more than $3.0 trillion over the next decade relative to the amounts projected in CBO's baseline. That total exceeds the $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years that would result from the President's budget as a whole; the President's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years.

Not only that, the deficit will be bigger because of larger interest payments!

Outlays would be greater under the President's budget than in CBO's baseline in each of the next 10 years, primarily because the proposed reduction in revenues would boost deficits and thus the costs of paying interest on the additional debt that would accumulate. In particular, net interest payments would nearly quadruple in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation) over the 2012–2021 period and would increase from 1.7 percent of GDP to 3.9 percent.

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

And here is the additional interest cost of extending the tax cuts.

The policy changes in the President’s budget would increase the government’s net outlays for interest by $2 billion in 2011 and by $519 billion between 2012 and 2021. Those increased outlays would result almost entirely from additional borrowing by the Treasury from the public to cover deficits greater than the amounts projected in the baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

So the tax cuts would cost the US Treasury a total of $3.5 trillion, $3 trillion in revenues and $500 billion in additional interest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what does the CBO identify as the main culprit in the increase in deficits?

Tax cuts! Particularly, extending the Bush tax cuts!

The President's policy proposals mostly affect the revenue side of the budget. Those proposals would reduce revenues, compared with CBO's baseline projections, in every year of the coming decade—for a total reduction of about 6 percent over the 2012–2021 period. ...

Of the various initiatives that the President is proposing, tax provisions would have by far the largest budgetary impact. The 2010 tax act (officially the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312) extended through December 2012 many of the tax reductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The President proposes to extend those reductions permanently, with some modifications, and to permanently index for inflation the amounts of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), starting at their 2011 levels. In addition, the President proposes that, beginning in January 2013, estate and gift taxes return permanently to the rates and exemption levels that were in effect in calendar year 2009. Those policies would reduce tax revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of more than $3.0 trillion over the next decade relative to the amounts projected in CBO's baseline. That total exceeds the $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years that would result from the President's budget as a whole; the President's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years.

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Not only that, the deficit will be bigger because of larger interest payments!

Outlays would be greater under the President's budget than in CBO's baseline in each of the next 10 years, primarily because the proposed reduction in revenues would boost deficits and thus the costs of paying interest on the additional debt that would accumulate. In particular, net interest payments would nearly quadruple in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation) over the 2012–2021 period and would increase from 1.7 percent of GDP to 3.9 percent.

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

And here is the additional interest cost of extending the tax cuts.

The policy changes in the President’s budget would increase the government’s net outlays for interest by $2 billion in 2011 and by $519 billion between 2012 and 2021. Those increased outlays would result almost entirely from additional borrowing by the Treasury from the public to cover deficits greater than the amounts projected in the baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

So the tax cuts would cost the US Treasury a total of $3.5 trillion, $3 trillion in revenues and $500 billion in additional interest.

So, if we add in that 3.5 trillion, most of which would have hit the middle class and working poor, then factor in Obama's math skills, he would have overestimated the revenue by almost $6 trillion dollars. Is that supposed to make me feel better, or worse?

 

[The T]

And what does the CBO identify as the main culprit in the increase in deficits?

Tax cuts! Particularly, extending the Bush tax cuts!

The President's policy proposals mostly affect the revenue side of the budget. Those proposals would reduce revenues, compared with CBO's baseline projections, in every year of the coming decade—for a total reduction of about 6 percent over the 2012–2021 period. ...

Of the various initiatives that the President is proposing, tax provisions would have by far the largest budgetary impact. The 2010 tax act (officially the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312) extended through December 2012 many of the tax reductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The President proposes to extend those reductions permanently, with some modifications, and to permanently index for inflation the amounts of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), starting at their 2011 levels. In addition, the President proposes that, beginning in January 2013, estate and gift taxes return permanently to the rates and exemption levels that were in effect in calendar year 2009. Those policies would reduce tax revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of more than $3.0 trillion over the next decade relative to the amounts projected in CBO's baseline. That total exceeds the $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years that would result from the President's budget as a whole; the President's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years.

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Not only that, the deficit will be bigger because of larger interest payments!

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

And here is the additional interest cost of extending the tax cuts.

The policy changes in the President’s budget would increase the government’s net outlays for interest by $2 billion in 2011 and by $519 billion between 2012 and 2021. Those increased outlays would result almost entirely from additional borrowing by the Treasury from the public to cover deficits greater than the amounts projected in the baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

So the tax cuts would cost the US Treasury a total of $3.5 trillion, $3 trillion in revenues and $500 billion in additional interest.

So, if we add in that 3.5 trillion, most of which would have hit the middle class and working poor, then factor in Obama's math skills, he would have overestimated the revenue by almost $6 trillion dollars. Is that supposed to make me feel better, or worse?

For some reason? I see a vision of Obama...up late at night...an accountant's LAMP on the desk in the Oval Oraface...with a pencil in his right ear, a visor on his head... a calculator on his desk...figuring this shit out for himself...

Truth is? He doesn't CARE...he's going on the word of his Czars...and the Democrat Statist party in the legislature.

He could care less either.

 

[Toro]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

 

[The T]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

And the cuts should be increased, and made permanent...until the IRS is abolished.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what does the CBO identify as the main culprit in the increase in deficits?

Tax cuts! Particularly, extending the Bush tax cuts!

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Not only that, the deficit will be bigger because of larger interest payments!

Congressional Budget Office - Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget for 2012

And here is the additional interest cost of extending the tax cuts.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf

So the tax cuts would cost the US Treasury a total of $3.5 trillion, $3 trillion in revenues and $500 billion in additional interest.

So, if we add in that 3.5 trillion, most of which would have hit the middle class and working poor, then factor in Obama's math skills, he would have overestimated the revenue by almost $6 trillion dollars. Is that supposed to make me feel better, or worse?

For some reason? I see a vision of Obama...up late at night...an accountant's LAMP on the desk in the Oval Oraface...with a pencil in his right ear, a visor on his head... a calculator on his desk...figuring this shit out for himself...

Truth is? He doesn't CARE...he's going on the word of his Czars...and the Democrat Statist party in the legislature.

He could care less either.

I know he does not care, but that does not mean he is not responsible for the budget he sends in. I also object to people throwin around that $3 trillion figure and blaming it on Bush when Obama fully supported $2.4 trillion of that himself. If he had managed to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted it would have netted $700 billion in revenue, not even enough to cover the accounting error in his budget.

 

[Rozman]

Is it safe to say that we're just fucked? I mean really, no matter who we elect, we're screwed. There is a huge cliff somewhere that our nation is gonna fall off of. Better have lots of stored food, ammo, gas, soap, clothing, a bicycle, playing cards, etc, etc, etc. Soon we'll be living like the people in North Korea. Maybe 20 years. Maybe 40. But American superiority is a dying breed.

I have a really bad feeling that this country has one foot on a banana peel and the other on a grease slick thanks to Obama and his ilk.I really feel if we could see our near future we would all look around for a quick way to end it all.

The bills that this administration is racking up is outrageous.And the brains in their outfit Paul Krugman rocks himself to sleep every night muttering with a tear in his eye that we just haven't spent nearly enough for his taste.

 

[Toro]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

And the cuts should be increased, and made permanent...until the IRS is abolished.

Not if it bankrupts the country.

The cost would be far greater than what you now pay in taxes.

 

[The T]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?



So, if we add in that 3.5 trillion, most of which would have hit the middle class and working poor, then factor in Obama's math skills, he would have overestimated the revenue by almost $6 trillion dollars. Is that supposed to make me feel better, or worse?

For some reason? I see a vision of Obama...up late at night...an accountant's LAMP on the desk in the Oval Oraface...with a pencil in his right ear, a visor on his head... a calculator on his desk...figuring this shit out for himself...

Truth is? He doesn't CARE...he's going on the word of his Czars...and the Democrat Statist party in the legislature.

He could care less either.

I know he does not care, but that does not mean he is not responsible for the budget he sends in. I also object to people throwin around that $3 trillion figure and blaming it on Bush when Obama fully supported $2.4 trillion of that himself. If he had managed to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted it would have netted $700 billion in revenue, not even enough to cover the accounting error in his budget.

Where was his budget in the 111th Congress?

 

[Trajan]

So it's not the 14 trill hannity and rush have been whining about for a couple years now?

I guess that depends on what they are including, doesn't it? Since the CBO does not count Social Security in their estimate of the budget deficit, just the numbers that Obama gives them, it is more than possible that Beck and Hannity are being overly optimistic about how small the debt is themselves.

I'd say. heres a frightening graphic, compliments of the cbo.

its all in the putting and what we do or not do now.

from an article in Reason, de Rugy & Gillespie;

snip-( see graph below from the OMB)-

John Podesta believes cutting $255 billion—the primary spending gap—from a projected 2015 budget over $4 trillion would “eviscerate the middle class.” So his group’s plan features major tax hikes instead, coupled with relatively small spending cuts. The Esquire program opts for tax hikes too. The presidential debt commission’s final report called for serious cuts to defense and other programs but increased gas taxes and raises the amount of salary subject to payroll taxes. More problematically, its plan depends on hiking federal revenue as a percentage of GDP to at least 21 percent, a level that has never been sustained at least since World War II. A majority of commission members endorsed the plan but not the requisite number needed to present its recommendations to Congress for action. You can almost feel the conventional wisdom hardening like an old man’s arteries. “Conservatives must accept that tax increases need to be on the table to achieve fiscal stability,” wrote Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus in November. “Liberals must accept that promised entitlement benefits are not affordable and must be pared.” This formulation may sound sensible, but any plan that relies on significantly raising average annual federal revenue is based on fantasy. Since 1950 annual federal revenue has averaged 17.8 percent of GDP, fluctuating within a relatively narrow range (see Figure 1). Despite endlessly creative attempts to squeeze more dollars out of taxpayers, the feds haven’t been able to pull in much more than that on a regular basis.

There’s a better way to balance the budget, one that wouldn’t raise revenue levels above historic averages or “eviscerate” anything other than bloated spending. To get there, though, we’ll need to lay out the basic facts without flinching, especially when it comes to realistic projections of revenue.

The 19 Percent Solution - Reason Magazine

snip-
Under the CBO’s basic projection, which amounts to little more than running numbers supplied by politicians, federal revenue will rise to 20 percent of GDP in 2015 and then climb even higher, reaching 21 percent in 2020 and 22.3 percent in 2030. If history is any guide, such estimates are pure fantasy. Under the CBO’s more realistic “alternative scenario,” federal revenue will equal about 19 percent of GDP within a few years and then stay around that level. Even that projection is a bit of a stretch, to judge from the last 60 years, but it is far more plausible than the basic projection. For the purposes of this budgeting exercise, we are willing to give the alternative forecast the benefit of the doubt.

So as a starting point, we assume that federal revenue will be about 19 percent of GDP in any given year. To put that into plain numbers, the GDP in 2010 was about $14.6 trillion. If the government spent 19 percent of GDP, it would have spent no more than $2.8 trillion, as opposed to the $3.6 trillion it actually shelled out. (We use fiscal year 2010 figures because, as of this writing, no federal budget has been passed for fiscal year 2011.) Federal spending will vary from year to year, especially in response to such unpredictable events as natural disasters, recessions, and acts of war. But like a family that dips into savings or lives on credit cards during short downturns, the government can survive such swings from time to time.






we are heading for a cliff and I mean right NOW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For some reason? I see a vision of Obama...up late at night...an accountant's LAMP on the desk in the Oval Oraface...with a pencil in his right ear, a visor on his head... a calculator on his desk...figuring this shit out for himself...

Truth is? He doesn't CARE...he's going on the word of his Czars...and the Democrat Statist party in the legislature.

He could care less either.

I know he does not care, but that does not mean he is not responsible for the budget he sends in. I also object to people throwin around that $3 trillion figure and blaming it on Bush when Obama fully supported $2.4 trillion of that himself. If he had managed to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted it would have netted $700 billion in revenue, not even enough to cover the accounting error in his budget.

Where was his budget in the 111th Congress?

He submitted it, but the Democrats did not want to pass it because they new they were facing a tough election and did not want to have to answer for increasing the deficit, and they did not want to be called racists for not just rubber stamping everything.

The result?

 

[The T]

I know he does not care, but that does not mean he is not responsible for the budget he sends in. I also object to people throwin around that $3 trillion figure and blaming it on Bush when Obama fully supported $2.4 trillion of that himself. If he had managed to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted it would have netted $700 billion in revenue, not even enough to cover the accounting error in his budget.

Where was his budget in the 111th Congress?

He submitted it, but the Democrats did not want to pass it because they new they were facing a tough election and did not want to have to answer for increasing the deficit, and they did not want to be called racists for not just rubber stamping everything.

The result?

*BINGO* Playing politics...with the lives of others which lends creedence to when these criminals get to the District of Criminals?

It's off to How can we fool the rubes to stay in power?

 

[Trajan]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

and as I have said in the past, I would sign on to blowing away the tax relief that was re-authorized if and only IF they took say erskine and bowles deficit commission recommendations to heart and actually CUT.

Obama said nary a word as to his own deficit commissions results and even the NT Times and Wapo said he was awol on this as per his SOTU address.

Then we have the senate majority leader whining about a cut to a prgm. for Cowboy Poetry tells me all I need to know, if the progressives won't even cut that, they won't cut where they really need to cut, so I'll keep my money and invest it myself thank you.


I have another observation to make; when the reps tried to kill earmarks, the media generally poo pooed that becasue well, at 19 billion its a 'rounding error', so be it, so why then is Harry and nancy fighting like hell over 6 Billion worth of cuts?

 

[Late2TheParty]

So it's not the 14 trill hannity and rush have been whining about for a couple years now?

$14 trillion is our existing debt now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Move along, nothing to see here.

A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade. The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years—an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.

CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion

A less optimistic view of tax revenues??

lol, didn't we cut taxes in December in order to increase revenues? lolol

 

[Toro]

It is Bush's fault that Obama is overestimating revenues? How, exactly, does that work in your world? How is it Bush's fault that Obama cannot add?

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

and as I have said in the past, I would sign on to blowing away the tax relief that was re-authorized if and only IF they took say erskine and bowles deficit commission recommendations to heart and actually CUT.

Obama said nary a word as to his own deficit commissions results and even the NT Times and Wapo said he was awol on this as per his SOTU address.

Then we have the senate majority leader whining about a cut to a prgm. for Cowboy Poetry tells me all I need to know, if the progressives won't even cut that, they won't cut where they really need to cut, so I'll keep my money and invest it myself thank you.


I have another observation to make; when the reps tried to kill earmarks, the media generally poo pooed that becasue well, at 19 billion its a 'rounding error', so be it, so why then is Harry and nancy fighting like hell over 6 Billion worth of cuts?

Yeah, its pretty sad.

I don't mind my taxes going up if spending is going to be cut and a serious assault is undertaken on the deficit. But then again, if not, I'm not an American, and I don't have to stay here.

One might also think that Obama isn't going to say much on the deficit until after the election. One would hope that Obama is either responding to the economic crisis and/or playing to his base, which becomes less important after the 2012 election. However, maybe T and QW are correct, and he really doesn't care. If he did, why would he propose making at least part of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? A better thing to do would be to extend them for, say, five years, when the economy has had time to repair and we are more able to take on tax hikes, and then have them expire. But that's not what he's proposing. Maybe he has a plan after 2012, but he hasn't shown it thus far.

 

[Late2TheParty]

You should have put GWB in that pic as well, that's how I envision the last 10 years Scratch that, he's be hanging out with White and Nerdy rap star Weird Al.

Obama has exceeded all my expectations though (in absolute sucking).

 

[The T]

Actually, no. In fairness to Bush, his tax cuts were supposed to expire. But that's what the tax cuts were called - "The Bush Tax Cuts." Maybe we should call them "The Obama Tax Cuts" from now on. I just can't see conservatives signing on to that though.

and as I have said in the past, I would sign on to blowing away the tax relief that was re-authorized if and only IF they took say erskine and bowles deficit commission recommendations to heart and actually CUT.

Obama said nary a word as to his own deficit commissions results and even the NT Times and Wapo said he was awol on this as per his SOTU address.

Then we have the senate majority leader whining about a cut to a prgm. for Cowboy Poetry tells me all I need to know, if the progressives won't even cut that, they won't cut where they really need to cut, so I'll keep my money and invest it myself thank you.


I have another observation to make; when the reps tried to kill earmarks, the media generally poo pooed that becasue well, at 19 billion its a 'rounding error', so be it, so why then is Harry and nancy fighting like hell over 6 Billion worth of cuts?

Yeah, its pretty sad.

I don't mind my taxes going up if spending is going to be cut and a serious assault is undertaken on the deficit. But then again, if not, I'm not an American, and I don't have to stay here.

One might also think that Obama isn't going to say much on the deficit until after the election. One would hope that Obama is either responding to the economic crisis and/or playing to his base, which becomes less important after the 2012 election. However, maybe T and QW are correct, and he really doesn't care. If he did, why would he propose making at least part of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? A better thing to do would be to extend them for, say, five years, when the economy has had time to repair and we are more able to take on tax hikes, and then have them expire. But that's not what he's proposing. Maybe he has a plan after 2012, but he hasn't shown it thus far.

Yer right...he doesn't CARE.

 

[Oddball]

You should have put GWB in that pic as well, that's how I envision the last 10 years Scratch that, he's be hanging out with White and Nerdy rap star Weird Al.

Obama has exceeded all my expectations though (in absolute sucking).

True dat....But the Shrub is long gone.

But what happened to hopey-changey?

 

[The T]

You should have put GWB in that pic as well, that's how I envision the last 10 years Scratch that, he's be hanging out with White and Nerdy rap star Weird Al.

Obama has exceeded all my expectations though (in absolute sucking).

True dat....But the Shrub is long gone.

But what happened to hopey-changey?

"hopey-Changey" has turned into Oh SHIT!

But yet excuses are offered to save face. Corners are being painted into...