Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Incredible Shrinking Budget Deficit

The Incredible Shrinking Budget Deficit
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 12:16 PM
 
A new report released Tuesday says the government's budget deficit is set to fall to $514 billion for the current year, down substantially from last year and the lowest by far since President Barack Obama took office five years ago.

The Congressional Budget Office report credits higher tax revenues from the rebounding economy and sharp curbs on agency spending as the chief reason for the deficit's short-term decline.

But CBO sees the long-term deficit picture worsening by about $100 billion a year through the end of the decade because of slower growth in the economy over the coming decade than it had previously predicted.

Last year's deficit registered $680 billion. Obama inherited an economy in crisis and first-ever deficits exceeding $1 trillion. The 2009 deficit, swelled by the costs of the Wall Street bailout, hit a record $1.4 trillion, while the deficits of 2010 and 2011 both registered $1.3 trillion.

The report predicted the economy will continue to rebound this year and grow at a 3.1 percent rate and by 3.4 percent next year. It foresees the jobless rate holding steady at 6.8 percent this year; the most recent nationwide unemployment rate registered 6.7 percent. It predicts the jobless rate remaining above 6 percent through the remainder of Obama's term.

CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.
New report: Budget deficit to drop to $514B

The federal budget deficit has been reduced by over 50% since the start of the Obama Administration. When he took office and pushed through the Stimulus program the Obama Administration predicted that the deficit would rise sharply temporarily and then steadily decline. Despite the GOP's obstructionism and implacable opposition to his economic policies ... this has still come to pass. Imagine that.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 12:33 PM
 
So, how much credit does the GOP get? I don't think the deficit gets this small without their holding the debt ceiling hostage. I'd also be curious as to what the deficit would look like without the sequester, which most people didn't think would actually occur.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 01:32 PM
 
This might be news if the country were not mired in the midst of a health-care disaster, several government corruption scandals, a dead in the water economy and atrocious employment numbers.

We're way past deficits boys and girls.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 09:13 PM
 
In addition to Snow-i's point, the heralded goal of $478b for next year constitutes the 6th highest deficit in US History up to 2010. When considering the combined efforts of Bush and Obama driving the deficits in 2009; we're really talking about an eventual return to pre-debacle levels, but for a glimpse of just one year and then increasing every year thereafter.

While it should be noted that CBO projections have proven unreliable beyond one year, even a 3.1% - 3.4% GDP growth is barely enough to keep apace with the numbers of young people entering the work-force numerically. Assuming that in a growing economy they would, though the real story the past several years has been how many others are bailing out of it. Worse, I don't see a Fannie Mae payback of $70b next year and I'm curious if we can simply continue quantitative-easing at more than $50b/month, indefinitely.

We can only hope the CBO's 3-year projection released today of more than 2 million jobs pushed out of the labor market due to the ACA is also mistaken.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 11:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, how much credit does the GOP get? I don't think the deficit gets this small without their holding the debt ceiling hostage. I'd also be curious as to what the deficit would look like without the sequester, which most people didn't think would actually occur.
That's sort of their main job, to make spending really hard to do.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This might be news if the country were not mired in the midst of a health-care disaster, several government corruption scandals, a dead in the water economy and atrocious employment numbers.

We're way past deficits boys and girls.
Yeah, it's much like celebrating that the mortgage payment was made, while the house is on fire.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 08:56 AM
 
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
Budget office chief: ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work | Fox News

This one too. Straight from the CBO.

ObamaCare creates a "Disincentive to work"


....Unmitigated disaster.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 01:54 PM
 
I took over the insurance for all my people, personally. I care too much to let them have to deal with that shitty nonsense.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I took over the insurance for all my people, personally. I care too much to let them have to deal with that shitty nonsense.
Because you're rich?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 05:05 PM
 
Perhaps because he cares and is able. Sounds better when stated this way.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because you're rich?
Because they aren't.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because you're rich?
Now besson3c, here I am in another thread trying to suggest that you're getting a disproportionate amount of vitriol from other posters and you pop right in here with a libtard drive-by.

ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Now besson3c, here I am in another thread trying to suggest that you're getting a disproportionate amount of vitriol from other posters and you pop right in here with a libtard drive-by.


I was just poking fun at the fact that Shaddim likes to point out frequently that he's wealthy, as if there is anybody left that doesn't know that.

Why is everything either liberal or conservative to you?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, how much credit does the GOP get? I don't think the deficit gets this small without their holding the debt ceiling hostage. I'd also be curious as to what the deficit would look like without the sequester, which most people didn't think would actually occur.
That's a fair point. Debatable ... but still fair nonetheless. The sharp, indiscriminate reductions in discretionary spending resulting from the sequester ... which BTW is NOT and never has been a significant driver of the long-term budget deficit ... undoubtedly contributed somewhat to a reduction in the deficit in 2013. But at the same time, yanking billions in federal spending ... which ultimately ends up back in the private sector ... significantly reduced GDP and impeded the economic recovery. Thereby reducing the higher tax revenues that result from a rebounding economy. So therein lies the debate. What would the federal deficit (and the unemployment rate for that matter) look like if it weren't for GOP insistence upon "austerity policies" that have been demonstrated repeatedly to be counter-productive? And just so we are on the same page let's be clear on what the sequester entailed:

The budget sequestration in 2013 refers to the automatic spending cuts to United States federal government spending in particular categories of outlays that were initially set to begin on January 1, 2013, as an austerity fiscal policy as a result of Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), and were postponed by two months by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.[1]

The reductions in spending authority are approximately $85.4 billion (versus $42 billion in actual cash outlays) during fiscal year 2013, with similar cuts for years 2014 through 2021. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the total federal outlays will continue to increase even with the sequester by an average of $238.6 billion per year during the next decade, although at a somewhat lesser rate.
Budget sequestration in 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what we see here is that President Obama inherited a $1 trillion deficit which swelled to to $1.4 trillion due to TARP bailouts and the Stimulus programing ... and then fell to $680 billion last year. Now even if we attributed a full $85.4 billion of that reduction to the impact of the sequester in 2013 only ... which was the only year it was in effect ... that's a relative drop in the bucket compared to what had already occurred due to the rebounding economy alone. We have here an excerpt of the official Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits since 2008 ...



What this shows is that starting in 2013 the sequester will essentially slow the rate of federal spending growth ... but it by no means cuts federal spending in absolute dollars. So when we project out into the future and analyze the marginal increase in federal revenue and spending ....



... it's clear that the deficit reduction is the result of the increases in federal revenues running well ahead of the increases in federal spending. Culminating in a 2 to 1 differential by the end of the projection.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I was just poking fun at the fact that Shaddim likes to point out frequently that he's wealthy, as if there is anybody left that doesn't know that.

Why is everything either liberal or conservative to you?
I was making a statement about my friends and employees, remarking that it's so bad (coverage and price increases) that I'm electing to increase the size of my group HSA to accommodate them, so they won't have massive deductibles and loss of coverage quality. Why can't I talk about innocuous things like that without drawing progressive stinkeye?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I was making a statement about my friends and employees, remarking that it's so bad (coverage and price increases) that I'm electing to increase the size of my group HSA to accommodate them, so they won't have massive deductibles and loss of coverage quality. Why can't I talk about innocuous things like that without drawing progressive stinkeye?
Because you're not supposed to express your altruism by giving to people, you're supposed to give to the government to eventually give some of it to some people.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is everything either liberal or conservative to you?
I didn't say "liberal", I said libtard. And this doesn't apply to everything, but digs against wealth? Always a libtard move.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Now besson3c, here I am in another thread trying to suggest that you're getting a disproportionate amount of vitriol from other posters and you pop right in here with a libtard drive-by.

Tampering with the evidence!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This might be news if the country were not mired in the midst of a health-care disaster, several government corruption scandals, a dead in the water economy and atrocious employment numbers.

We're way past deficits boys and girls.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yeah, it's much like celebrating that the mortgage payment was made, while the house is on fire.
lololol "We won't let you have this victory, Obama."
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
lololol "We won't let you have this victory, Obama."
What victory Dakar? That this particular deficit will only be the 6th highest to 2010? Whoopdy ****ing do!

Lets not get over excited here, temporarily reducing the deficit by increasing taxes is by no means a "good job" on the economy unless this is accomplished alongside economic growth. We're still barreling down the road to economic ruin full steam ahead - these numbers don't even represent a decline in the rate at which we're going. It's hard to get excited that Obama was able to generate a headline about the deficit only being a half trillion dollars., especially when the increased burden taxpayer coupled with those evil Republicans shutting down the government and forcing the sequester cuts were the only reasons he was able to do so. Talk about hypocrisy.

If anything, this is a victory for the Republicans in the House. I don't see it as a victory at all, however. It's just a travesty slightly less severe than the one a year ago.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What victory Dakar? That this particular deficit will only be the 6th highest of all time? Whoopdy ****ing do!
Yeah, this was such a minor recession. Whoopdy-doo indeed.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Lets not get over excited here, temporarily reducing the deficit by increasing taxes is by no means a "good job"
Speaking of not getting excited, taxes got raised to, what, late 1990s levels? That's still near historical lows.

Also, a chunk of change is the increasing amount of people actually finding jobs.
Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows as Job Gains Bolster Revenue - Bloomberg
“We’ve seen spending come down and tax receipts outperforming, based off of a little bit better economic growth,” said Michael Brown, an economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte, North Carolina. “As long as we maintain a pace of job growth that is consistent with what we’ve seen over the last couple of months, that trend of increase in revenue should continue.”
That's not temporary.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
lololol "We won't let you have this victory, Obama."
Okay, okay! He gets a point. One.

*3 seconds of light clapping ensues*

You know, the recession would have completely corrected by now if he'd kept his dick (healthcare) in his pants, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 03:53 PM
 
That's what notable wingnut Rahm told him.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2014, 04:01 PM
 
Weiner too!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 09:39 AM
 
Obama gets nothing. The economy is somewhat resilient because people are still interested in surviving and are attempting to grow in spite of Fed folly. I have no reason to conclude Obama would've done anything differently than Bush in Bush's last two years of deficits because Obama basically doubled-down on every expensive one upon entering office. You can say he wouldn't have taken us into war with Iraq, but I'm not buyin' it. Everything he does is read from his index finger in the air. This is the same man that was against gay marriage and raising the debt ceiling too. Not to mention his schizophrenia on torture, unprovoked military action, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping and expansions of the NSA. He's nothing more than a political opportunist who, under the pressure of the overwhelming majority of the country would've had to have been begged OUT of action in Iraq. Yes, the Bush tax cuts Obama continued citing their stimulus. Yes the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes the omnibus and additional stimulus -- all of it. TARP may have passed while Bush was in office, but Obama certainly didn't have to sign it. He did. So... the economy has managed to survive its way back to the deficit numbers that existed prior to Obama taking them into the trillions. While the heralded goal is still the nation's 6th highest deficit in history (but only for one year and then rising back into ludicrous every year thereafter), we're supposed to give Obama credit for winning? Snow-i was right, winning what?

I give him credit for doubling down on essentially all of Bush's folly, cheating the American people with lies, upending the entire health care industry to cover little more than a third of the uninsured, and for perpetuating the slowest recovery in US history. And this year, when Obama is in your State -- your incumbent representatives will not be there to meet him. Trust me. It's that bad. He's not the "winner" he was at Inauguration and that's precisely because he's been identified as someone other than the man he was at Inauguration.

The Incredible Shrinking President
ebuddy
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 01:17 PM
 
Amazing. Can anything a democrat does ever get any credit?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Amazing. Can anything a democrat does ever get any credit?
WTF

This is about true, positive results, and those are 100% absent.
Why would you give credit for nothing ?

And btw, the discussions recently centered on OBAMA, not a generic democrat.
You can have your own opinion on whether being a democrat and showing those results is correlated.

-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Amazing. Can anything a democrat does ever get any credit?
I wish we had Bill back.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
This is about true, positive results, and those are 100% absent.
Why would you give credit for nothing ?

And btw, the discussions recently centered on OBAMA, not a generic democrat.
You can have your own opinion on whether being a democrat and showing those results is correlated.
I get the feeling, not just in the US, that no matter what happens, the right/left cannot be given credit for good news by the left/right. Its always something else, some other factor, some variable that said right or left wing politician has no control over.

My question was not just about this shrinking budget deficit btw.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I wish we had Bill back.
He didn't do too badly as Sec of State for the past four years.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2014, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Amazing. Can anything a democrat does ever get any credit?
Yes. Hillary was shrewd enough to bail before this Administration completely demolished any chances of a political future or legacy as he's done with Sebelius and others. I give her credit for being politically shrewd. Otherwise, this Administration and their cronies in goose-step legislative folly have worsened the conditions of every element of society they'd ever hoped to improve. There is no winner and no accolades among the American people who are getting squeezed to thrust ideology that has only ever worked on the papers of academia.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Okay, okay! He gets a point. One.

*3 seconds of light clapping ensues*

You know, the recession would have completely corrected by now if he'd kept his dick (healthcare) in his pants, right?
The healthcare law that just went into effect has been ****ing up the economy for the past 4 years? Those companies that returned to record profits after a few short years are just a figment of my imagination?



Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I wish we had Bill back.
I can't believe I'm the on to say this, but isn't Clinton overrated? Balancing the budget only occurs because the Republicans take congress and put the gun to his head. The economy booms because of the internet regardless of president, right? And what are his social accomplishments? Don't ask, don't tell and DOMA?

Don't get me wrong, I'd take him back as well – what some see as political spinelessness can also be viewed as populism. And certainly the worst thing he ever did was have a lack of good judgement in his private life – and that's if you don't think Hilary turned a blind-eye to that sort of thing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes. Hillary was shrewd enough to bail before this Administration completely demolished any chances of a political future or legacy as he's done with Sebelius and others. I give her credit for being politically shrewd. Otherwise, this Administration and their cronies in goose-step legislative folly have worsened the conditions of every element of society they'd ever hoped to improve. There is no winner and no accolades among the American people who are getting squeezed to thrust ideology that has only ever worked on the papers of academia.
B-rock "The Islamic Shock" Obama hits hard.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The healthcare law that just went into effect has been ****ing up the economy for the past 4 years? Those companies that returned to record profits after a few short years are just a figment of my imagination?
They're doing well in spite of who is in office. Even a stout wall won't completely hold back an avalanche.

I can't believe I'm the on to say this, but isn't Clinton overrated? Balancing the budget only occurs because the Republicans take congress and put the gun to his head. The economy booms because of the internet regardless of president, right? And what are his social accomplishments? Don't ask, don't tell and DOMA?

Don't get me wrong, I'd take him back as well – what some see as political spinelessness can also be viewed as populism. And certainly the worst thing he ever did was have a lack of good judgement in his private life – and that's if you don't think Hilary turned a blind-eye to that sort of thing.
He could lead, could negotiate and get both sides to work together (a good deal of the time). Obama can't, or won't. His dictatorial, "my way or the highway" approach to governing isn't suited for the office of the POTUS. He's set precedences for the scope of executive orders that will make you freak out in years to come, when someone you really dislike takes office, and going by his threats they'll be worse before he's gone.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They're doing well in spite of who is in office. Even a stout wall won't completely hold back an avalanche.
You could use that excuse when companies are doing badly as well.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
You could use that excuse when companies are doing badly as well.
Until you look at the trends of all companies, not just the Fortune 500. Sure, Apple, Exxon, and the rest of the giants are doing well, they skirt major issues by playing shell games with profits. Small businesses, which are what employ most people in this country, can't choose what they want to pay, and neither do they qualify for $billions$ in corporate welfare.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The healthcare law that just went into effect has been ****ing up the economy for the past 4 years? Those companies that returned to record profits after a few short years are just a figment of my imagination?
A mass hallucination indeed.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Balancing the budget only occurs because the Republicans take congress and put the gun to his head.
Actually the balancing of the budget occurred because of the extension of the "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ... which, for the record ... was universally opposed by every single GOP member of Congress except for one lone senator. It worked as this graph showed ....



But let's keep in mind that Newt Gringich came to power as Speaker of the House during the mid-term election of 1994. So the GOP took control of Congress in the congressional session starting in 1995 when this legislation was already in effect and bearing fruit. And I might add, the moment they were able to eliminate PAYGO when G. W. Bush was elected President they did exactly that. Because it required Congress to actually pay for new tax cuts as well as new spending. And lo and behold the massive deficits returned.

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2014, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They're doing well in spite of who is in office. Even a stout wall won't completely hold back an avalanche.
For sure! An avalanche of $85 billion/month in QE. Which was why your point on the '500 was dead on. It can't be maintained without the funny-money and the fundamentals of a healthy economy just aren't in the data.

He could lead, could negotiate and get both sides to work together (a good deal of the time). Obama can't, or won't. His dictatorial, "my way or the highway" approach to governing isn't suited for the office of the POTUS. He's set precedences for the scope of executive orders that will make you freak out in years to come, when someone you really dislike takes office, and going by his threats they'll be worse before he's gone.
It becomes particularly disheartening when its authority is being wielded as a weapon by an Administration that has shown an ability to rewrite law at whim.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,