ANOTHER GOLDEN oportunity for liberals to RUN and HIDE from reality about Obama Admin

[Liability]

The Long-Term Budget Outlook
Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios (Percentage of GDP)


Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

In CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for fiscal policy.

Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, but much less sharply. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level. Meanwhile, as depicted below, government spending on all activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—a broad category that includes national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades.

Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)


Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. As shown in the figure below, between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs.

Factors Explaining Future Federal Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (Percentage of GDP)


The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Budget Projections, Long-Term Budgetary Issues.

Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Long-Term Budget Outlook

The line for liberal Obama Administration Apologists to start evading these concerns starts here.

 

[G.T.]

Unfortunately,

We have all been duped. There's no GOP administrations or DNC Administrations left that wouldn't cave to the invisible-hands of Corporate Interests, Lobbyists, etc.

If you ask ten persons on the street what runs this Country, Money or Men, at least 8 but maybe all ten would say money. Human-nature has led us to the promise-land of worshipping Capital. It's how it always was and always will-be, but is now exascerbated (sp?) because we are the Strongest (IMO) Nation to ever exist.

In-terms of Earth Years, man-kind is young. Rome was a great empire but it fell. The remnants of what made it strong helped build this Nation, but Human-Beings are now more advanced and our money-worship probably has more harsh consequences to come.

For a philosopher, or any thinking person; the solution is obviously the right-mix of capitalism and empathy. To ignore empathy, Greed takes over one's Government and Citizens become a statistic. (see: Tobacco).

So what's the fucking answer, geniuses?

 

[editec]

Yes, I also believe that we are on a path to insolvency leading to the nation becoming more like a third world nation than the leader of the free world.

Of course Obama is helping, but he can hardly be credited with all the factors leading us to this unhappy state.

 

[Maple]

Oh, I am going to credit him he is the one who keeps pushing this massive train wreck, he doesn't even take a breath. First the no stimulus- stimulus bill thats not creating any jobs, Cap and Trade, a major job KILLER, and his new health care plan. The CBO has come out and stated that this would not reduce health care costs, it will INCREASE THEM. Yet he is still behind this train wreck, strong arming everyone into going along with it.

The good news, his own party is starting to bail on him. Thank God.

He pushes his agenda without giving any consideration to the consequences, he is to blame.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The current group of democrats don't care how much money they spend or what the consequences of spending that money might be. At the present spending rate we are soon going to be just like the state of California - bankrupt. What then, Batman?

 

[editec]

Oh, I am going to credit him he is the one who keeps pushing this massive train wreck, he doesn't even take a breath. First the no stimulus- stimulus bill thats not creating any jobs, Cap and Trade, a major job KILLER, and his new health care plan. The CBO has come out and stated that this would not reduce health care costs, it will INCREASE THEM. Yet he is still behind this train wreck, strong arming everyone into going along with it.

The good news, his own party is starting to bail on him. Thank God.

He pushes his agenda without giving any consideration to the consequences, he is to blame.

Well you're naturally welcome to assume that sans the stimulus happy days would be here again, but I rather doubt you're right about that.

Even assuming that the stimulus is making things worse (which they might be) the problem in this economy is beyond the mere problem of the current meltdown.

The people, the majority of people, have been getting poorer for the last 40 years.

All the other bubbles and busts we're had are symptoms of that systemic economic disruption.

 

[G.T.]

The current group of democrats don't care how much money they spend or what the consequences of spending that money might be. At the present spending rate we are soon going to be just like the state of California - bankrupt. What then, Batman?

Oh, because the blame game has always worked.

Do you know why you're even here? To debate, no? Why do you think both sides are able to carry-on these debates/blame games/etc.? Of course, your cute quip. will be to blame the other side of some form of retardation, and that's fine but doesn't forward anything in regards to critical thinking and progress. The reason both sides are able to debate the-blame-lies-where?!?! is because both sides are in on it and beholden to similar interests.

To have any sort of honesty in conversation we, as a country, in order to rebuild and restructure, need to reject both platforms and this is strictly in-terms of ethics. They put money first, country last.

Pitting one side vs. the other is a futile exercise, it keeps you busy and content.

Do you think Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity care about conservatives>? That's why Sean Talks about Handbags, looking at a butt, and Rush comments that Obama throws like a girl? Really? This is what passes muster? Olbermann making fun of Bush's word mis-pronunciation? Really?

Do you wonder why 80% of the country doesn't give a flying fuck about politics and is just content to be along for the ride? Because people in politics are playing this side vs. side immature my team is better than your team bullshit, and most citizens don't have the time of fucking day for that baby bullshit.

 

[Big Black Dog]

G.T. - There is some merit to what you have said. Truth of the matter is there isn't a single politician in Washington that is worth enough gun powder to blow him or her up. All the incumbents need to be tossed out on their ear and some new faces (either democrat or republican) put into their slot so some new ideas and views can surface. Until that happens we are going to continue to go down the path of stupidity that the democrats are so merrily leading us. Obama is very bad news for this country. He, and that wonderful group of idiots that support him are going to ruin this country. If you think it's getting bad now, wait and watch what's happening a year from now if he continues to go unchecked.

 

[G.T.]

G.T. - There is some merit to what you have said. Truth of the matter is there isn't a single politician in Washington that is worth enough gun powder to blow him or her up. All the incumbents need to be tossed out on their ear and some new faces (either democrat or republican) put into their slot so some new ideas and views can surface. Until that happens we are going to continue to go down the path of stupidity that the democrats are so merrily leading us. Obama is very bad news for this country. He, and that wonderful group of idiots that support him are going to ruin this country. If you think it's getting bad now, wait and watch what's happening a year from now if he continues to go unchecked.

I'm not that drastically concerned until the Citizenry (of a-political persons, not political like most of you) becomes inspired enough to act. Until then, I will witness your back-and-forth rhetorical game while easily depicting its flaws in logic & maturity. Each side has its crosses to bear but really, the elite are working together and using frivolous wedge-issues to have yourself and others distracted by those circular debates and not focusing against your own (sides) any longer but more-so focused on defending vs. the other side.

Every time I've ever done a fact-check on Rush, or Sean or the like it's funny. They've totally distorted every single issue they discuss with spin and cannot simply discuss using the actual facts. They omit facts in order to feed the red meat to partisans, and they have worshippers for doing so. See their message-boards for cripe's sakes, people actually believe these clowns and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you remember Barnie Goldberg taking Sean (his "teammate") to task for focusin on meaningless issues, and Sean denied it up and down? Ok, explain the incessant focus on Michelle's appearance and his entire segment devoted to the "looking at butt gate." He has his fans around his finger and should be fucking ashamed for using their gullability against them.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Look how the deficit was going DOWN until the Dems got majority control of Congress, vs. what we're seeing today. Handy chart:

 

[G.T.]

And if you look at the surplus under Clinton and the deficits under his surrounding Republicans we can again have a circular argument about who's fault it is. Kid-games.

 

[JenT]

Unfortunately,

We have all been duped. There's no GOP administrations or DNC Administrations left that wouldn't cave to the invisible-hands of Corporate Interests, Lobbyists, etc.

If you ask ten persons on the street what runs this Country, Money or Men, at least 8 but maybe all ten would say money. Human-nature has led us to the promise-land of worshipping Capital. It's how it always was and always will-be, but is now exascerbated (sp?) because we are the Strongest (IMO) Nation to ever exist.

In-terms of Earth Years, man-kind is young. Rome was a great empire but it fell. The remnants of what made it strong helped build this Nation, but Human-Beings are now more advanced and our money-worship probably has more harsh consequences to come.

For a philosopher, or any thinking person; the solution is obviously the right-mix of capitalism and empathy. To ignore empathy, Greed takes over one's Government and Citizens become a statistic. (see: Tobacco).

So what's the fucking answer, geniuses?

Empathy? Empathy for WHAT? All the people that sat on their you know what and wouldn't work?

Obama's EMPATHY of taking all the money from those that would have TAKEN RISKS and provided jobs, he has penalized THOSE people and pouring all their money into welfare and health care, where everyone is paying our tax money at $500 a pop for runny noses. One woman was reported as even calling an ambulance to take her to the hospital for a headache because she didn't want to wait in line (ambulance patients get immediate help)

This entitlement attitude is what's killing our economy, people don't care if they get laid off because they'll just go on government rolls and be paid for doing nothing.

Then the STUPID LIBS LIKE PELOSI have been pushing abortion down our throats so long that we have no new generations to support the elderly, baby boomers are going to be blamed for costing too much and will be denied services by the time I get there, because my life or health won't be worthy enough.

 

[JenT]

Look how the deficit was going DOWN until the Dems got majority control of Congress, vs. what we're seeing today. Handy chart:

Why is it supposed to get better in 2012? HOPE once Obama is gone?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And if you look at the surplus under Clinton and the deficits under his surrounding Republicans we can again have a circular argument about who's fault it is. Kid-games.

The surpluses "under Clinton" were with a Republican Congress, and WITH Paygo, Gramm-Rudman, and line-item veto which were all taken away or rendered toothless before Boooosh was ever elected.

Nice try though. Just face the one and only truth Nancy Pelosi has ever uttered, "Elections have consequences."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Look how the deficit was going DOWN until the Dems got majority control of Congress, vs. what we're seeing today. Handy chart:

Why is it supposed to get better in 2012? HOPE once Obama is gone?

No.

Those are projections, estimates from Obama himself and the CBO based on numbers the WH is giving. They show generational massive deficits for the foreseeable future.

 

[JenT]

And if you look at the surplus under Clinton and the deficits under his surrounding Republicans we can again have a circular argument about who's fault it is. Kid-games.

Lets not forget the dems who insisted the banks make the loans to people that had no hope of paying it back. The poor must have their own homes just like everybody that worked for them. Clinton STARTED all those initiatives, and the Bush administration was constantly voted down in stopping the hemorhagging.

 

[G.T.]

Empathy? Empathy for WHAT? All the people that sat on their you know what and wouldn't work?

Obama's EMPATHY of taking all the money from those that would have TAKEN RISKS and provided jobs, he has penalized THOSE people and pouring all their money into welfare and health care, where everyone is paying our tax money at $500 a pop for runny noses. One woman was reported as even calling an ambulance to take her to the hospital for a headache because she didn't want to wait in line (ambulance patients get immediate help)

This entitlement attitude is what's killing our economy, people don't care if they get laid off because they'll just go on government rolls and be paid for doing nothing.

Then the STUPID LIBS LIKE PELOSI have been pushing abortion down our throats so long that we have no new generations to support the elderly, baby boomers are going to be blamed for costing too much and will be denied services by the time I get there, because my life or health won't be worthy enough.

Empathy isn't Entitlement, always or necessarily. Calm down fair-weathered partisan, your mind is not objective regarding these issues. Partisanship clouds judgement, it's like an ailment. I trust neither fucking side, especially those who cannot recognize that they obviously hack on one side over and over and basically, 75% of the time on meaningless issues.

A quick search on you and you're amongst those who makes the fly-by meaningless, gradeschool partisan comments like how good or bad Obama can throw.

Are you a star athlete? I bet I'd fucking run you off of any court of field there is and still not use it as an immature fucking dig, as if you're objective

 

[G.T.]

Lets not forget the dems who insisted the banks make the loans to people that had no hope of paying it back. The poor must have their own homes just like everybody that worked for them. Clinton STARTED all those initiatives, and the Bush administration was constantly voted down in stopping the hemorhagging.

That's the radio spin of that issue, sure. You've got this partisanship shit down.

 

[JenT]

Look how the deficit was going DOWN until the Dems got majority control of Congress, vs. what we're seeing today. Handy chart:

Why is it supposed to get better in 2012? HOPE once Obama is gone?

No.

Those are projections, estimates from Obama himself and the CBO based on numbers the WH is giving. They show generational massive deficits for the foreseeable future.

Maybe the pseudo-messiah KNOWS he won't make another term, is just making up that it will improve until he gets kicked out.

 

[G.T.]

The surpluses "under Clinton" were with a Republican Congress, and WITH Paygo, Gramm-Rudman, and line-item veto which were all taken away or rendered toothless before Boooosh was ever elected.

Nice try though. Just face the one and only truth Nancy Pelosi has ever uttered, "Elections have consequences."

Yes yes, and the defecit under Bush w/6-years under Republican congress was Clinton's fault, and Obama's 8 months in office is also comparable to what one has done over a 6-year span. partisanship is for koo-koo's.