GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Obama admin predicts 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion

nation-x · 08-26-2009, 05:19 AM

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his ?supply side economics? did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush?s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a ?B? grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan?s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton?s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton?s policy in order to revive Reagan?s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his ?base? as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush?s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I?ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton?s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It?s like pretending you?re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion ?nominal? deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.

According to the CBO, in 2004, Bush's 10 year deficit projection was $4.5 Trillion.... IN 2004. Read that again... In 2004 the CBO said that Bush's 10 year deficit was $4.5 Trillion... and that was with accounting tricks that the Bush admin utilized.

The Obama budget projected a 2009 deficit of $1.75 trillion. But that number would have been much lower had the White House used the same accounting tricks and conventions used by the Bush administration.

The $1.75 trillion deficit included $250 billion for additional assistance for financial institutions that the White says it's not requesting in the budget but may need later in the year. The Bush budget would have excluded this from the budget and simply added it later if and when the funds were needed. Excluding it from the Obama budget as Bush would have done would have reduced the apparent deficit to $1.5 trillion.
The Obama budget included $75.5 billion for additional funds for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would also have been excluded from the Bush budget. Doing that here would have reduced the apparent deficit to about $1.4 trillion.
The Obama budget included about $70 billion in lower revenue from the one-year patch for the Alternative Minimumn Tax that was included in the stimulus bill. The Bush budget typically assumed that the AMT would not be patched even though everyone knew it would be. The Bush accounting treatment would have reduced the deficit to about $1.35 trillion.*
The Obama budget included about $20 billion for natural disasters; the Bush budgets always assumed that there would be no floods, earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Using the Bush budget rules, this would have reduced the 2009 deficit to $1.33 trillion.
Finally, the Bush budgets always assumed that the physician reimbursement provisions in Medicare would go into effect as planned even though, just like the AMT patch, it was virtually guaranteed to be scaled back. This would have reduced the deficit to about $1.3 trillion.

The bottom line is that money needed to be spent to continue the economic recovery effort... ON TOP of the fact that Obama had 2 wars to pay for as soon as he entered office... Say what you will, we are starting to see the sprouts of positive economic indicators and will continue to do so. Once Obama and Congress get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, we will be back on track to pay down the debt... just like under Clinton... Clinton had to do the exact same thing... The reason is that Democrats believe in demand side economics rather than supply side economics (The Republican theory that has NEVER worked). "Trickle Down" economics is a proven failure that exploded our deficits and debt... and that is the pure fact of the matter. Blaming it on Obama, who hasn't even been in office a year yet, is just retarded. The economic forecast was dire years before he even decided to run for president (as I detailed above).

08-26-2009, 05:19 AM
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his ?supply side economics? did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush?s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a ?B? grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts. Bill Clinton reversed Reagan?s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton?s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton?s policy in order to revive Reagan?s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his ?base? as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush?s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I?ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment. But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton?s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It?s like pretending you?re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion ?nominal? deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion. According to the CBO, in 2004, Bush's 10 year deficit projection was $4.5 Trillion.... IN 2004. Read that again... In 2004 the CBO said that Bush's 10 year deficit was $4.5 Trillion... and that was with accounting tricks that the Bush admin utilized. The Obama budget projected a 2009 deficit of $1.75 trillion. But that number would have been much lower had the White House used the same accounting tricks and conventions used by the Bush administration. The $1.75 trillion deficit included $250 billion for additional assistance for financial institutions that the White says it's not requesting in the budget but may need later in the year. The Bush budget would have excluded this from the budget and simply added it later if and when the funds were needed. Excluding it from the Obama budget as Bush would have done would have reduced the apparent deficit to $1.5 trillion. The Obama budget included $75.5 billion for additional funds for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would also have been excluded from the Bush budget. Doing that here would have reduced the apparent deficit to about $1.4 trillion. The Obama budget included about $70 billion in lower revenue from the one-year patch for the Alternative Minimumn Tax that was included in the stimulus bill. The Bush budget typically assumed that the AMT would not be patched even though everyone knew it would be. The Bush accounting treatment would have reduced the deficit to about $1.35 trillion.* The Obama budget included about $20 billion for natural disasters; the Bush budgets always assumed that there would be no floods, earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Using the Bush budget rules, this would have reduced the 2009 deficit to $1.33 trillion. Finally, the Bush budgets always assumed that the physician reimbursement provisions in Medicare would go into effect as planned even though, just like the AMT patch, it was virtually guaranteed to be scaled back. This would have reduced the deficit to about $1.3 trillion. The bottom line is that money needed to be spent to continue the economic recovery effort... ON TOP of the fact that Obama had 2 wars to pay for as soon as he entered office... Say what you will, we are starting to see the sprouts of positive economic indicators and will continue to do so. Once Obama and Congress get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, we will be back on track to pay down the debt... just like under Clinton... Clinton had to do the exact same thing... The reason is that Democrats believe in demand side economics rather than supply side economics (The Republican theory that has NEVER worked). "Trickle Down" economics is a proven failure that exploded our deficits and debt... and that is the pure fact of the matter. Blaming it on Obama, who hasn't even been in office a year yet, is just retarded. The economic forecast was dire years before he even decided to run for president (as I detailed above).