Making me right again

It looks like the CBO is making me look right again by revising their projected US government budget deficits to show them not shrinking as fast as previously predicted. Note that the graph is in percentage of GDP, which in and of istelf is a way to hide the fact things are getting worse, since GDP is projected to keep gowing up. So the further out you go, the bigger the actual deficit dollar amount of bars of equal length to previous ones will be. And I am willing to bet these numbers are too conservative and the reality will be far worse if we keep spending like the current crop of crooks wants to keep going. Also note the labor partcipation graph and how that’s trending. These policies the left loves have a cost.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    It looks like the CBO is making me look right again

    Um, are you saying that you were leading the charge on this? A couple of million people (including several on this site and the CBO itself) have been warning pretty much the same thing for years now.

    revising their projected US government budget deficits to show them not shrinking as fast as previously predicted

    What study are you referring to when you say the CBO revised their numbers? Last years estimate said;

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

    If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level.

    From your link;

    As it does regularly, CBO has prepared baseline projections
    of what federal spending, revenues, and deficits
    would look like over the next 10 years if current laws
    governing federal taxes and spending generally remained
    unchanged. Under that assumption, the deficit is projected
    to decrease again in 2015—to $478 billion, or
    2.6 percent of GDP (see Summary Table 1). After that,
    however, deficits are projected to start rising—both in
    dollar terms and relative to the size of the economy—
    because revenues are expected to grow at roughly the
    same pace as GDP whereas spending is expected to grow
    more rapidly than GDP.

    Both of these are consistent with the graph in your link, namely that yearly budget deficits are smaller now (compared to the $1.4 trillion Obama was running up initially) but will soon rise again until Katie bar the door.

    If anything that graph paints an even darker picture of our future, a future where in our lifetimes the interest on accumulated debt will reach a point where it is higher than all incoming revenues.

    The CBO always gives themselves wiggle room with ,” if current laws
    governing federal taxes and spending generally remained
    unchanged”, which means we need a massive governmental overhaul, pronto.

    Thumb up 3

  2. AlexInCT *

    Um, are you saying that you were leading the charge on this? A couple of million people (including several on this site and the CBO itself) have been warning pretty much the same thing for years now.

    Not at all Rich, but I had a discussion with the usual people, right here on this blog, not just once before, but a couple of times, maybe more, where they kept telling me the CBO was showing that the deficit spending would soon go poof. I told them they were insane for saying that because the damage done to the economy combined with the spend agenda of the left, before Obamacare was in the picture, was already large enough to guarantee us deficits that would be more than 1/2 a trillion dollars in the best years. I also pointed out that when Obamacare went live, things would only get worse. Far worse. Now the CBNO has revised their numbers, and they look ugly. And I am again betting they are off and it will be because these crooks in DC will piss away even more of our money making their friends super rich while pretending to be fighting for the little guy.

    If anything that graph paints an even darker picture of our future, a future where in our lifetimes the interest on accumulated debt will reach a point where it is higher than all incoming revenues.

    And that’s what I have been saying. We are royally fucked by these collectivists and their big nanny state that thinks they can just keep raising their credit card limit. My point was, and remains, not to trust people that are robbing us blind, especially when they are pretending to care for the little guy and want to do good, and to actually expect them to fuck us over. But others told me I was being unfair to the collectivists when I said so before.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000

    I don’t think anyone said the deficit would go poof. What I have said is that the deficit has been shrinking for several years now and that entitlements are the big problem going forward.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    What I have said is that the deficit has been shrinking for several years now

    You forgot the part about how you guys were telling me that things were getting better, which prompted me to compare the situation about things getting better to using my belt to put a tourniquet around a guy bleeding from the jugular. We are being played by these people and things are only getting worse.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Xetrov

    The deficit hit $1.4 Trillion his first full year in office, and stayed above $1 Trillion annually his entire first term. Saying the deficit is shrinking is like saying I went from 250 lbs to 800 lbs in 12 months, but don’t worry about my health because I’m down to 775 lbs. Any attempted justification for the “shrinking deficit” while Obamacare is passed, and entitlements are ignored (or worse – expanded) is bullshit ignorance of the reality this country is in.

    Thumb up 3

  6. AlexInCT *

    Xetrov, that’s some wacky math you’re using,

    Actually Rich, I think his math makes real good and perfect sense. He is pointing out that deficit spending during the Boosh years (or before), which only had one high year – and that was the last one where Pelosi controlled spending – was akin to the 250 lbs guy (remember the howling back then from the left and the LSM about those numbers and how we needed them for some fiscal discipline?). Then you get the spike that makes you jump to his 800 lbs, the $1.4 trillion year, followed by more deficit spending that goes over $1 trillion for several years. And when that deficit spending drops a little, you get the 775 lbs guy, which is where we are now with people telling us things are a lot better. The problem is that we are still morbidly obese and we are going to die from the massive weight/over spending, because we will not do what it takes to get healthy.

    That’s why I find the whole “the deficit spending is getting better” argument ludicrous. It’s not enough to make any kind of difference in the long or short run.

    Thumb up 2

  7. richtaylor365

    I know, I was just being a smart ass (and not doing it very well).

    All deficits are bad (speaking the obvious, of course) but smaller deficits are better than larger deficits, both are on the road to ruin, one will just get you there quicker.

    Nobody should expect surpluses in the near future, this governmental behemoth does not turn on a dime, but lower deficits is the goal, I just wish that the trend would continue in that direction, it’s not, hence, the comment I made earlier about regime change.

    Thumb up 3

  8. Hal_10000

    I’ll try this one last time.

    FY2009 was Bush’s last year. In FY 2009, the budget deficit was 1.4 trillion. $300 billion of that can be put on Obama’s stimulus. The rest is all on Bush. The first trillion dollar deficit was Bush’s. And it wasn’t because an orgy of Pelosi spending. It was tax cuts, massive spending increases that Bush happily signed onto, two wars and a depression, very little of which can be put on Obama. Since then, it has declined every year to $680 billion in FY 2013. If we want to continue that decline, we need to get control of entitlements.

    So to go back to your analogy, we’d been pigging out for a decade and blew up to 900 lbs when Bush left. Obama got us up to 1000 have slowly trimmed back to 500.

    (Also, please be consistent in your blaming. Is the deficit the President’s fault or Congress’s? ‘Cuz you can’t blame Congress when the Democrats have the House and then blame Democrats again when Republicans do. Both parties are shit.)

    The biggest reason the CBO revised its deficit projections is because they are projecting slower economic growth. That’s in part due the equivalent of 2.5 million workers leaving jobs as Obamacare kicks in, which the White House and all their apologists are currently insisting is actually a good thing.

    Thumb up 3

  9. Xetrov

    Also, please be consistent in your blaming. Is the deficit the President’s fault or Congress’s? ‘Cuz you can’t blame Congress when the Democrats have the House and then blame Democrats again when Republicans do. Both parties are shit.

    Where was I inconsistent? (you respond and refer to my analogy directly above this statement, so I assume you are talking to me when you say “your blaming”) Both parties ARE shit, and to blame for the mess this country is in. Both Congress AND the office of the President are to blame.

    My beef is you saying the deficit shrinking is great, while ignoring Obamacare being passed and what that will do to the deficit in the long term, and entitlement spending accelerates (expansion of medicare as a result of Obamacare, SS ignored, Most people on foodstamps ever, etc.), and is ignored by both branches of government. Sure, the deficit may shrink in the short term (though it grew this last year again), but neither side is interested in making a dent in the actual debt. The hole is still getting bigger every year.

    So to further my analogy, great, I now weigh 500 lbs. But now my diabetes has flared up and I refuse to stop eating sugar (with an anti-coagulation medication mixed in) at an ever accelerated rate, got dementia (Obama re-elected), both my right and left arms are busy trying to rip the other one from my body, and I’m bleeding to death from a wound under the 5 ton weight on my chest that nobody is paying attention to, least of all me. Life is wonderful.

    Thumb up 2

  10. AlexInCT *

    Where was I inconsistent? (you respond and refer to my analogy directly above this statement, so I assume you are talking to me when you say “your blaming”) Both parties ARE shit, and to blame for the mess this country is in. Both Congress AND the office of the President are to blame.

    ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

    In fact, double THIS.

    My beef is you saying the deficit shrinking is great, while ignoring Obamacare being passed and what that will do to the deficit in the long term, and entitlement spending accelerates (expansion of medicare as a result of Obamacare, SS ignored, Most people on foodstamps ever, etc.), and is ignored by both branches of government. Sure, the deficit may shrink in the short term (though it grew this last year again), but neither side is interested in making a dent in the actual debt. The hole is still getting bigger every year.

    We should stress that only one party ran on the “We will be better at fiscal discipline” platform, when deficit spending was not pure insanity yet, only to take the slow death both parties were subjecting us to and reduce the many decades it would have taken to destroy things, to a decade or two (best case). Giving these people a pass after what they did, by pretending things are heading in the right direction of all things, is plain stupid.

    Things are only getting better if you would also think that while we are getting ass raped they are talking to us about giving us a reach around, means things are getting better.

    Thumb up 1

  11. richtaylor365

    Actually, FY 2009 was NOT the first trillion dollar deficit;

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123491373049303821?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB123491373049303821.html&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009

    It has been widely noted that 2009 will have the first “trillion-dollar deficit” in American history. Actually it’s the second. In fiscal 2008, the national debt increased from $9 trillion to slightly over $10 trillion. Yet the budget deficit in the last fiscal year was officially reported as being $455 billion. How could the national debt have increased by considerably more than twice the “deficit”? Simple. Just call the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund an “intragovernmental transfer” and exclude it from the calculation of the deficit.

    Corporate managers have gone to jail for less book cooking than that.

    which the White House and all their apologists are currently insisting is actually a good thing.

    It was an amazing sight, the alacrity demonstrated by the dems in how efficiently they circled the wagons and came up with their spin, no wonder they have proven formidable. We saw both Carney and Pelosi spout off about the fact that now Americans will not be “shackled” with work and have time to “pursue their dreams”, some other congressional dunderhead said that now Americans will have time to tuck their kids in at night, not burdened with 2 or 3 jobs keeping them away from their brood. They are the party of opposites day.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Hal_10000

    My beef is you saying the deficit shrinking is great, while ignoring Obamacare being passed and what that will do to the deficit in the long term, and entitlement spending accelerates (expansion of medicare as a result of Obamacare, SS ignored, Most people on foodstamps ever, etc.), and is ignored by both branches of government. Sure, the deficit may shrink in the short term (though it grew this last year again), but neither side is interested in making a dent in the actual debt. The hole is still getting bigger every year.

    I do acknowledge this all the time. My point is that you can’t pin this entirely on the Democrats. We’ve had a decade of awful decision making out of Washington from both parties. For Alex to describe what Bush left us as a man weighing 250 lbs is absurd.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Xetrov

    For Alex to describe what Bush left us as a man weighing 250 lbs is absurd.

    The 250 lb. man analogy is mine.

    800/250=3.28
    1.4T/458B=3.05

    Not all that far off considering I pulled the weight numbers out of thin air.

    However, nowhere did I say that Bush was responsible for the 250 lb man. I simply said that the deficit hit $1.4T in Obama’s first term in office, and stayed above $1T his entire first term. Bush and that Congress (which Obama was a part of at the time) are most certainly responsible for the first bailout.

    Thumb up 0