CBO Report Estimates 2014 Deficit at Half a Trillion Dollars: Why The Real Deficit Nu

[Revmitchell]

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its updated projections for the 2014 federal budget. CBO reports the 2014 deficit at $492 billion, just shy of a half a trillion dollars. However, this estimate should be taken with a heap of salt: It is arguably misleading to the extent that the operations of mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs), are improperly accounted for in the budget. Without that distortion, both spending and the deficit in 2014 would be higher by about $85 billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/14...-dollars-real-deficit-number-actually-higher/

 

[Crabtownboy]

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) r eleased its updated projections for the 2014 federal budget. CBO reports the 2014 deficit at $492 billion, just shy of a half a trillion dollars. However, this estimate should be taken with a heap of salt: It is arguably misleading to the extent that the operations of mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs), are improperly accounted for in the budget. Without that distortion, both spending and the deficit in 2014 would be higher by about $85 billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/14...-dollars-real-deficit-number-actually-higher/

Not all that bad seeing how we are recovering from Bush's economic disaster. His deficit in was 962 billion in 2009. Only his first year in office was the deficit less than 400 billion. From to 2007 the accumulated deficit was 4.08 trillion.

Under Clinton there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.

The deficit under Obama has been shrinking. Good news. Maybe, just maybe we will survive the disaster inflicted on the US economy during the first 9 years of the 21st century.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Not all that bad seeing how we are recovering from Bush's economic disaster.

I see the Little Marxist Dictator's chef is here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Bush inherited Clintons recession. The dems controlled congress the last two years of the Bush whitehouse.

The deficit is falling at a high percentage because it shot up so extremely high under Obama in the first place.

What has helped it come back down at all is the Bush tax cuts, and sequestration which has forced Obama's hand in cutting spending.

When the president proclaims that the deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in decades, that’s the same as saying that the speed at which the nation is rolling backward has decreased dramatically, wrote Keith Hennessey, director of the National Economic Council under President Bush, in May.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Bush inherited Clintons recession. The dems controlled congress the last two years of the Bush whitehouse.

And did he make it better by turning a surplus into a deficit. No, he did not. He

The deficit is falling at a high percentage because it shot up so extremely high under Obama in the first place.

Look at the numbers, the numbers are falling.

What has helped it come back down at all is the Bush tax cuts, and sequestration which has forced Obama's hand in cutting spending.

Helping the rich only compounded the problem.

I am amazed how many of the average folk want to protect the rich at their own expense. Simply amazing and the rich are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[InTheLight]

Bush inherited Clintons recession. The dems controlled congress the last two years of the Bush whitehouse.

The deficit is falling at a high percentage because it shot up so extremely high under Obama in the first place.

What has helped it come back down at all is the Bush tax cuts, and sequestration which has forced Obama's hand in cutting spending.

Yes, yes, and yes!

Look at the numbers, the numbers are falling.

Bush had the deficit down to about $180 Billion by 2008, then the financial crisis hit and TARP was passed. That increased the deficit to about $440 billion. Then Obama got into office and passed his Stimulus plan and the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. It is being incrementally reduced and was at about $500 Billion in 2013, still more than it was at when Bush left office.

 

[InTheLight]

Helping the rich only compounded the problem.

I am amazed how many of the average folk want to protect the rich at their own expense. Simply amazing and the rich are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everybody got a tax cut, not only the rich.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently crabby is the only one left at the DNC who has not gotten the memo that blaming Bush is no longer acceptable.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Apparently crabby is the one one left at the DNC who has not gotten the memo that blaming Bush is no longer acceptable.

Just showing comparisons, just showing comparisons. Bush's legacy will be one of disaster in 100 years. When you speak about an issue that began in his time in office that still impacts us today it is legitimate to mention him.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Everybody got a tax cut, not only the rich.

Yes, you and I got a few coins tossed to us, but the rich were given many dollars. This was primarily through lowered capital gains taxes, lowered the tax rate on dividend income.

These tax cuts, touted to be great for the economy has not proven to be as advertised.

Tax breaks for the super-rich might be great for the super-rich. They just don’t do much for the rest of us.

Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich would would boost the economy by an almost negligible amount, according to a recent analysis from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute -- far less for GDP growth than continuing stimulus measures. Letting the tax cuts expire wouldn't hurt job growth either, according to data from a University of California at Berkeley economist, cited by Mother Jones.

The findings echo those of a similar Congressional Budget Office report last month, which found that the Bush-era tax cuts will cost the U.S. $1 trillion over the next decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/bush-era-tax-cuts-economic-growth_n_1910344.html

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, you and I got a few coins tossed to us, but the rich were given many dollars. This was primarily through lowered capital gains taxes, lowered the tax rate on dividend income.

These tax cuts, touted to be great for the economy has not proven to be as advertised.

The rich got the highest proportion of income tax cuts, 4.6%. Most everyone else got 3%. Capital gains taxes and dividend taxes were reduced for everyone equally. These changes did not take effect until 2003. The law was passed mid-2003 and made retroactive for the entire year. So people would see the results when they filed their 2003 taxes, or 1st quarter of 2004 and beyond.

So what happened?

In Feb 2003 the S&P 500 was at 841; in Feb 2008 it was at 1,330, a gain of 58% over 5 years. Annual rate of 11.6%. That's great news for anyone with a 401k. There was no major stock market corrections during this time. CTB, you are an investor, I know you know this.

The GDP growth rate shot up from 1.5% first quarter 2003 to 3.9% first quarter 2004. Subsequent quarters saw 4.1%, 3.9%, 3.0%, then hovered between 2.9% and 3.1% every quarter until first quarter 2007, when Dems took control of the House, when it dropped to 1.2%.

Since Obama took office we have seen only two quarters with GDP growth above 3.0%. The tax cuts on the upper 2% were removed in 2013. GDP promptly dropped from 3.1% to 2.0%, then dropped to 1.3% by mid 2013. Average GDP the last year of the Bush tax cuts--2.8%; average GDP the year after cuts removed--1.7%.

I don't know about you but I'll take a consistent GDP of around 3% during the Bush years over the roller coaster ride of GDP that rarely touches 3% we've had with Obama and his increased tax rates on the wealthy.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The rich got the highest proportion of income tax cuts, 4.6%. Most everyone else got 3%. Capital gains taxes and dividend taxes were reduced for everyone equally. These changes did not take effect until 2003. The law was passed mid-2003 and made retroactive for the entire year. So people would see the results when they filed their 2003 taxes, or 1st quarter of 2004 and beyond.

So what happened?

In Feb 2003 the S&P 500 was at 841; in Feb 2008 it was at 1,330, a gain of 58% over 5 years. Annual rate of 11.6%. That's great news for anyone with a 401k. There was no major stock market corrections during this time. CTB, you are an investor, I know you know this.

The GDP growth rate shot up from 1.5% first quarter 2003 to 3.9% first quarter 2004. Subsequent quarters saw 4.1%, 3.9%, 3.0%, then hovered between 2.9% and 3.1% every quarter until first quarter 2007, when Dems took control of the House, when it dropped to 1.2%.

Since Obama took office we have seen only two quarters with GDP growth above 3.0%. The tax cuts on the upper 2% were removed in 2013. GDP promptly dropped from 3.1% to 2.0%, then dropped to 1.3% by mid 2013. Average GDP the last year of the Bush tax cuts--2.8%; average GDP the year after cuts removed--1.7%.

I don't know about you but I'll take a consistent GDP of around 3% during the Bush years over the roller coaster ride of GDP that rarely touches 3% we've had with Obama and his increased tax rates on the wealthy.

You forgot to factor in the crash of 2008 and how much that took out of 401K's and investments in other accounts. Most of that gained from 2001 to 2007 was lost. That was under Bush you remember. A lot of people knew it was coming including Bush administration. They hoped the bubble would not pop until after he left office, but as we know it popped while he was still in office.

 

[InTheLight]

You forgot to factor in the crash of 2008 and how much that took out of 401K's and investments in other accounts. Most of that gained from 2001 to 2007 was lost. That was under Bush you remember. A lot of people knew it was coming including Bush administration. They hoped the bubble would not pop until after he left office, but as we know it popped while he was still in office.

Yes, I remember the crash. Tell me, how did the Bush tax cuts cause the crash?

 

[Aaron]

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its updated projections for the 2014 federal budget. CBO reports the 2014 deficit at $492 billion, just shy of a half a trillion dollars. However, this estimate should be taken with a heap of salt: It is arguably misleading to the extent that the operations of mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs), are improperly accounted for in the budget. Without that distortion, both spending and the deficit in 2014 would be higher by about $85 billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/14...-dollars-real-deficit-number-actually-higher/

Deficit-Schmeficit.

Just take a look at the debt.