Jump to content

Deficits Rapidly Shrinking Spending Flat Under Obama


Recommended Posts

 

As C&L documented elsewhere with these five charts, after $2.5 trillion in reductions over the next decade already achieved since 2011, the U.S. national debt is stable in the near and mid-term. Simply put, there is no crisis to justify the additional spending cuts Republicans are now trying to extort. As it turns out, federal spending has hardly budged while deficits have plummeted since Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009.

 

These four charts showing the data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tell the tale.

 

About two weeks before President Obama first sat in the Oval Office, the CBO published its last budget forecast of the Bush presidency. With the recession which began in December 2007 costing 800,000 jobs a month and spending on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) now underway, CBO predicted a $1.186 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009.

 

Ultimately, Uncle Sam finished FY 2009 with a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. But as former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett explained, that extra red ink wasn't due to extra spending on the stimulus package or "counter-cyclical" programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance or food stamps.

 

Instead, tax revenue, it turned out, had fallen off a cliff:

 

fed_spending_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement...

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected [in January], but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

 

fed_revenue_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

As it turns out, spending has remained flat under President Obama. In May, CBO forecast federal outlays for FY 2013 (which ended on September 30) at $3.46 trillion. That's less than the budget George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama in January 2009. Looking ahead, federal spending will start growing again beginning in FY 2015, as the impact of retiring baby boomers and the expenditures for the Affordable Care Act ramp up.

 

Uncle Sam's tax revenue is also starting to rebound after hitting levels not seen since the Korean War. As a percentage of the U.S. economy, revenue plummeted to 14.9 percent of GDP, a low not seen since 1950. The Treasury's estimated take for 2013 ($2.8 trillion) will finally reach the level previous hit in 2007. It should also be noted the extent to which the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 drained--and continue to drain--Uncle Sam's coffers. Only in 2006 did the Treasury collect as much revenue as it had in 2000.

 

fed_deficits_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

Looking ahead to the rest of President Obama's second term, the federal budget deficit is under control. After topping 10 percent of GDP during the depths of the recession in 2009, the deficit will drop to only 2.4 percent in fiscal year 2017. But with annual deficits predicted to begin increasing again toward the end of this decade as Medicare (and not Social Security) drive up federal spending, new cost controls and more revenue will be needed.

 

But not now. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Especially with persistently high unemployment and a fragile economic recovery, this is not the time to cut another dime of federal spending. And despite the Republican histrionics, absolutely no reason to keep the federal government shut and the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imagine what would have happened to deficits and the debt without Obama's $400 Billion omnibus immediately upon taking office, and the failed $1 Trillion stimulus... not to mention the 3 quantitative easing projects (because the first two failed) that are still running and adding to the taxpayer's bill.

 

Luckily for Obama, this $1.2 Trillion in "stimulus" spending isn't reflected by the deficit number you idiots brag about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As C&L documented elsewhere with these five charts, after $2.5 trillion in reductions over the next decade already achieved since 2011, the U.S. national debt is stable in the near and mid-term. From the open...

 

 

So with this kind of progress we will have the 17 trillion paid off in what eighty years??

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal coloring books lol.

 

As treasury revenues increase, GDP is shrinking, UE is expanding.

 

Instead of doing something positive for the economy, Barry and the dems

have and continue to do everything in their power to dwindle Americans discretionary

spending, forcing them to take on more consumer debt. Business is suffering under

the same wealth redistribution scheme. It all flows down hill, crushing low and middle

class.

 

We can add Barry's ego to the list of things deemed too big to fail.

 

Definition: Skews
To distort; depict unfairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While spending more than one has, the debt is still growing exponentially. Sing along with me, "I owe, I owe, I'd rather owe and cheat others out of their time living in the moment after I am dead, I go.

 

Lifetimes are within life, not beyond it or greater than. Character role playing is a self made illusion on part by the gender performing the art of saving humanity, not rescuing ancestry from making the same mistakes over and over each generation another ancestor is added to this atmosphere.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts are kryptonite to the contards. They don't care. The only thing they care about is the ( R ) in front of some handjobs name.

 

Everyday some RW moran here claims Obama spent 35 trillion in 3 months, and that Bush balanced the budget. You could stuff facts down their throats and they'd windmill and parrot Limbaugh as soon as they puked out the icky facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deficits Rapidly Shrinking Spending Flat Under Obama

And why is that, skews? Come on now, son, you can put this together.

 

What? Still lost?

 

Here's a hint...

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=3356267

 

And then you may not want to read the next three posts after that. After all, I wouldn't want you to be stuck with facts.

 

Everyday some RW moran here claims Obama spent 35 trillion in 3 months,

Nowz when you prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the repigs know this .

thats why their closeing to government ,

to fu-k up thje economic growth we did .

they don't care about America just the standings of the repig party . republicans first America somewhere after .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I stopped laughing, I realized you were serious. Then I became sad for our country that people actually believe this. Then I laughed again. LOL!

 

Good thing Republicans controlled the House for the last few years, spending would have been insane as it was when the Dems passed Obamacare and the stimulus or as we in reality call it, the Obama slushfund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts are kryptonite to the contards. They don't care. The only thing they care about is the ( R ) in front of some handjobs name.

 

Everyday some RW moran here claims Obama spent 35 trillion in 3 months, and that Bush balanced the budget. You could stuff facts down their throats and they'd windmill and parrot Limbaugh as soon as they puked out the icky facts.

Don't you realize that when you have to lie, to make your argument, that you've already lost?

Dumbass.

 

the repigs know this .

thats why their closeing to government ,

to fu-k up thje economic growth we did .

they don't care about America just the standings of the repig party . republicans first America somewhere after .

I care about America, which is why I oppose ignorant fools like you, who can't even construct a cogent thought in English.

You sir, are proof that our education system has failed our country.

We clearly need to spend more money promoting your failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I stopped laughing, I realized you were serious. Then I became sad for our country that people actually believe this. Then I laughed again. LOL!

Good thing Republicans controlled the House for the last few years, spending would have been insane as it was when the Dems passed Obamacare and the stimulus or as we in reality call it, the Obama slushfund.

So, no facts for you today.

 

cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As C&L documented elsewhere with these five charts, after $2.5 trillion in reductions over the next decade already achieved since 2011, the U.S. national debt is stable in the near and mid-term. Simply put, there is no crisis to justify the additional spending cuts Republicans are now trying to extort. As it turns out, federal spending has hardly budged while deficits have plummeted since Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009.

 

These four charts showing the data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tell the tale.

 

About two weeks before President Obama first sat in the Oval Office, the CBO published its last budget forecast of the Bush presidency. With the recession which began in December 2007 costing 800,000 jobs a month and spending on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) now underway, CBO predicted a $1.186 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009.

 

Ultimately, Uncle Sam finished FY 2009 with a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. But as former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett explained, that extra red ink wasn't due to extra spending on the stimulus package or "counter-cyclical" programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance or food stamps.

 

Instead, tax revenue, it turned out, had fallen off a cliff:

 

fed_spending_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

 

fed_revenue_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

As it turns out, spending has remained flat under President Obama. In May, CBO forecast federal outlays for FY 2013 (which ended on September 30) at $3.46 trillion. That's less than the budget George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama in January 2009. Looking ahead, federal spending will start growing again beginning in FY 2015, as the impact of retiring baby boomers and the expenditures for the Affordable Care Act ramp up.

 

Uncle Sam's tax revenue is also starting to rebound after hitting levels not seen since the Korean War. As a percentage of the U.S. economy, revenue plummeted to 14.9 percent of GDP, a low not seen since 1950. The Treasury's estimated take for 2013 ($2.8 trillion) will finally reach the level previous hit in 2007. It should also be noted the extent to which the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 drained--and continue to drain--Uncle Sam's coffers. Only in 2006 did the Treasury collect as much revenue as it had in 2000.

 

fed_deficits_obama.jpg
Credit: Perrspectives

 

Looking ahead to the rest of President Obama's second term, the federal budget deficit is under control. After topping 10 percent of GDP during the depths of the recession in 2009, the deficit will drop to only 2.4 percent in fiscal year 2017. But with annual deficits predicted to begin increasing again toward the end of this decade as Medicare (and not Social Security) drive up federal spending, new cost controls and more revenue will be needed.

 

But not now. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Especially with persistently high unemployment and a fragile economic recovery, this is not the time to cut another dime of federal spending. And despite the Republican histrionics, absolutely no reason to keep the federal government shut and the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

 

 

You are starting with the stimulus and TARP as baseline. Start with any date before 2009. Propaganda works for uninformed libs, not real thinkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no facts for you today.

 

cc

How about facts from you? Why didn't Screw's numbers account for the $1.2 Trillion in spending still going on by Obama via QE3?

 

 

 

You are starting with the stimulus and TARP as baseline. Start with any date before 2009. Propaganda works for uninformed libs, not real thinkers.

 

 

Yep, as I mentioned (in different wording) in Post #3.

I think they were hoping no one would notice their deceit, but when everything they say is a lie, it's hard to miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laffin...teacher takes a series of FOX out-of-context snippets and thinks that's making a case.

Obama has been the most frugal, before and after the sequestration, which was never intended to be implemented till a MAJORITY vote of republicans triggered it to spite the black guy.

 

FOX talking point: The sequester was Obama's idea/ he supported it:
(status: horsesht)

"In 2011, House Republican leaders used their new majority to force their priorities on the Democratically controlled Senate and the president by holding the debt limit hostage to demands for deep and immediate spending cuts. After negotiations between Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner failed (Eric Cantor recently took credit for scuttling a deal), the parties at the eleventh hour settled on a two-part solution: immediate discretionary spending caps that would result in cuts of almost $1 trillion over 10 years and the creation of a “supercommittee” tasked with reducing the 2012-2021 deficit by another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. If the supercommittee didn’t broker a deal, automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over the next decade — the sequester — would go into effect. The sequester was designed to be so potentially destructive that the supercommittee would surely reach a deal to avert it.

The sequester’s origins can’t be blamed on one person — or one party. Republicans insisted on a trigger for automatic cuts; Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, suggested the specifics, modeled after a sequester-like mechanism Congress used in the 1980s, but with automatic tax increases added. Republicans rejected the latter but, at the time, took credit for the rest. Obama took the deal to get a debt-ceiling increase. But he never accepted the prospect that the sequester would occur, nor did he ever agree to take tax increases off the table.

FOX talking point: The sequester is responsible for the deficit reduction under Obama:

(status: horsesht)

What runaway spending? The $787 billion stimulus was a one-time expenditure that has come and gone. Under current law, not including the sequester, non-defense discretionary spending as a share of the economy will shrink to a level not seen in 50 years. Defense spending grew substantially over the past decade, but that pattern has slowed and will soon end. Additional reductions must be achieved intelligently, tied to legitimate national security needs.

Across-the-board cuts can have perverse effects on deficits; as services are cut, the fees users pay for those services are lost. For example, sequester-driven furloughs of air-traffic controllers will lead to the number of flights being reduced.

The annual budget deficit is projected to fall by almost 50 percent in 2013 compared with the height of the recession. Reducing the deficit over the long term requires going where the money is — boosting economic growth, controlling health-care costs and increasing revenue to handle the expense of an aging population. Deeper discretionary-spending cuts are counterproductive; immediate cuts, as Europe has made, could lead to a recession and bigger deficits.

Those who relish using a sequester — some House Republicans, along with a gaggle of radio talk-show hosts, editorial writers and cable television commentators — say this is one small step toward reducing U.S. deficits and debt. But if the goal were really debt reduction, it would be easy to get a bipartisan deal that would lower the debt enough to meet the original target set by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, with roughly a third coming from revenue. The insistence on deep discretionary-spending reductions while calling for even deeper tax cuts shows that the sequester is not about money but about taking a meat ax to government as we know it.

The tactics to achieve that goal — from the sequester to the threat to shut down the government in late March to the next confrontation over the debt limit — have made basic governance a huge challenge for the executives managing programs and agencies, nearly all of whom lack a clear sense of how much money they will have from one day to the next. Planning, recruiting personnel and drafting long-term contracts have become impossible in areas from cybersecurity to embassy security to medical research to homeland security, damaging not industries rife with waste, fraud and abuse but critical services."

 


Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. They are the authors of “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”

 

Take FOX news and Brietbart and stuff them up your uneducated ass, teach. Try using facts for once in your debate, rather than Brietbart/ fox tricks... and games of "let's see what we can snatch out of context'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As C&L documented elsewhere with these five charts, after $2.5 trillion in reductions over the next decade already achieved since 2011, the U.S. national debt is stable in the near and mid-term. Simply put, there is no crisis to justify the additional spending cuts Republicans are now trying to extort.

 

Other than the fact that this happened only because Obama and Dems lost the House, and he miscalculated in offering Repubs the Sequester.

 

Which he thought they'd never expect.

 

And because most federal spending is on autopilot and the National Debt will rise to 190% of GDP by 2038.

 

At which point the country's economy almost certainly will collapse, if not sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imagine what would have happened to deficits and the debt without Obama's $400 Billion omnibus immediately upon taking office, and the failed $1 Trillion stimulus... not to mention the 3 quantitative easing projects (because the first two failed) that are still running and adding to the taxpayer's bill.

 

Luckily for Obama, this $1.2 Trillion in "stimulus" spending isn't reflected by the deficit number you idiots brag about here.

Why do you lie? Quantative easing is purchased with new money. It does not add to debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"FACT: Republican Leaders Supported And Touted Sequester As Success

Boehner: Budget Control Act "A Positive Step Forward." Following the passage of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which included the sequester, Speaker of the House John Boehner lauded the deal, touting it as "a positive step forward that begins to rein in federal spending."

Ryan: Budget Control Act "Represents A Victory." House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan also praised the passage of the Budget Control Act, claiming:


The Budget Control Act represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner's leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama's demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls.

 

MYTH: Sequester Is The Only Opportunity For Spending Cuts

Krauthammer: Sequester Is The "One Time Republicans Can Get Cuts ... Get Them While You Can." In an opinion article titled, "Call Obama's Sequester Bluff," syndicated columnist and Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer urged Republicans to use sequester as a bargaining chip, claiming it is the only opportunity to exact spending cuts out of the Obama administration:


The Republicans finally have leverage. They should use it. Obama capitalized on the automaticity of the expiring Bush tax cuts to get what he wanted at the fiscal cliff -- higher tax rates. Republicans now have automaticity on their side.

If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything. Get them while you can. [The Washington Post, 2/7/2013]

Forbes: "If We Do Not Cut Now, We Never Will." In an op-ed piece responding to Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol's call for Republicans to compromise over the sequester, Forbes contributor Paul Roderick Gregory argued that Republicans should not bend on the sequester. From Forbes:


Does Kristol not understand that Obama will fight to the end against spending cuts (except in defense) using his considerable demagoguery skills, knowing Republicans cannot withstand the pressure. In the end, we'll get more, not less, spending, and Obama will hand off to his successor a debt with which we cannot live. If we do not cut now, we never will. [Forbes, 2/9/2013]

 

 

FACT: Congress Has Already Approved Large Spending Cuts

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Congress Has Already Cut Spending By $1.5 Trillion. In a November report outlining cuts to discretionary funding, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that in 2011, Congress reduced budget expenditures by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. CBPP also noted that this figure does not include potential sequestration cuts built into the Budget Control Act. From the report:


The $1.5 trillion in budget reductions in discretionary programs that policymakers have enacted reflect two actions that policymakers took last year. First, in the spring of 2011, Congress and the President cut discretionary funding for fiscal year 2011 below the 2010 inflation-adjusted level, and thereby reduced the base on which discretionary funding levels for future years are built. Second, in August 2011, they reduced future-year funding substantially by enacting the BCA, which established statutory caps on total discretionary funding and separate "sub-caps" on funding for defense and non-defense (i.e., domestic and international) discretionary programs for 2012 through 2021. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/8/2012]

After Passage Of ATRA And BCA, Spending Cuts Outweigh Revenue Increases. In an analysis of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Center for American Progress noted that revenue from changes in the tax code will amount to about $617 billion from 2013 to 2022, far lower than the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts enacted by Congress in 2011.

 

Media Matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts are kryptonite to the contards. They don't care. The only thing they care about is the ( R ) in front of some handjobs name.

 

Everyday some RW moran here claims Obama spent 35 trillion in 3 months, and that Bush balanced the budget. You could stuff facts down their throats and they'd windmill and parrot Limbaugh as soon as they puked out the icky facts.

Listen you mental midgit! Character is nothing but pretend like theory and theology define the facts gathered in what lifetimes believe could become real, not what is physically absolute.

 

You project this time line crap, show us how life escapes this moment, not lifetimes passing through this atmosphere, but life living in this moment one specific lifetime at a time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you lie? Quantative easing is purchased with new money. It does not add to debt.

LOL... you have GOT to be kidding. New money? Where does that come from?

The Fed Buys bonds from the Treasury which WE HAVE TO PAY FOR when they are cashed in.

 

You liberals scare me with your lack of knowledge about economics.

 

"FACT: Republican Leaders Supported And Touted Sequester As Success

MYTH: Sequester Is The Only Opportunity For Spending Cuts

FACT: Congress Has Already Approved Large Spending Cuts

Media Matters

Why is Media Matters building this strawman? No one has said that the Sequester is the ONLY opportunity for spending cuts.

Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... you have GOT to be kidding. New money? Where does that come from?

The Fed Buys bonds from the Treasury which WE HAVE TO PAY FOR when they are cashed in.

 

You liberals scare me with your lack of knowledge about economics.

 

Why is Media Matters building this strawman? No one has said that the Sequester is the ONLY opportunity for spending cuts.

Dumbass.

When they buy the assets, they print the money a-hole. It does not add to the debt. It could cause inflation, but it does not add to debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you realize that when you have to lie, to make your argument, that you've already lost?

Dumbass.

 

I care about America, which is why I oppose ignorant fools like you, who can't even construct a cogent thought in English.

You sir, are proof that our education system has failed our country.

We clearly need to spend more money promoting your failure.

 

You're still stupid .

You care about the teabagers more than America or you wouldn't be willing to set back the economy just to damage the Dems . And you should know this .

As for my ignorance ? Screw you .

 

I looked it up son a person that had been castrated can still have sex . All he needs if a pump in the plant and hormone replacement .

 

Don't call me sir , you haven't earned the right to .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they buy the assets, they print the money a-hole. It does not add to the debt. It could cause inflation, but it does not add to debt.

It does when they cash in the bond and WE tax payers have to pay them back.

 

 

You're still stupid .

You care about the teabagers more than America or you wouldn't be willing to set back the economy just to damage the Dems . And you should know this .

As for my ignorance ? Screw you .

 

I looked it up son a person that had been castrated can still have sex . All he needs if a pump in the plant and hormone replacement .

 

Don't call me sir , you haven't earned the right to .

Yea, all you need is a mechanical dick to make your brain work.

Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...