Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:35 PM Jan 2015

CBO: Deficit to shrink to lowest level of Obama presidency

Source: AP-Excite

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Solid economic growth will help the federal budget deficit shrink this year to its lowest level since President Barack Obama took office, according to congressional estimates released Monday.

The Congressional Budget Office also projects a 14 percent drop in the number of U.S. residents without health insurance, largely because of Obama's health law.

In a report released Monday, CBO says the deficit will be $468 billion for the budget year that ends in September. That's slightly less than last year's $483 billion deficit.

The official scorekeeper of Congress projects solid economic growth for the next few years, with unemployment dropping slightly.

FULL story at link.



FILE - In this March 4, 2014 file photo, copies of President Barack Obama{2019}s proposed fiscal 2015 budget are set out for distribution on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Congressional Budget Office says the federal budget deficit will shrink this year to its lowest level since President Barack Obama took office. CBO says the deficit will be $468 billion for the budget year that ends in September. That{2019}s slightly less than last year{2019}s $483 billion deficit. As a share of the economy, CBO says this year{2019}s deficit will be slightly below the historical average of the past 50 years. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)


Read more: CBO: Deficit to shrink to lowest level of Obama presidency

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBO: Deficit to shrink to lowest level of Obama presidency (Original Post) Omaha Steve Jan 2015 OP
That redneck turd running the Benghazi hearings....... wolfie001 Jan 2015 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #2
It may not be good news to some forest444 Jan 2015 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #8
Maybe if we give more to the Mittens of the world, all will be well. wolfie001 Jan 2015 #9
We could solve this very easily... CANDO Jan 2015 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #12
Even if the actual rate was not 91% CANDO Jan 2015 #24
Republicans know how to fix this... Tax Cuts for the wealthy... Bandit Jan 2015 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #17
The problem is we have more going out than we have coming in. Bandit Jan 2015 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #21
Anybody making over five hundred thousand dollars a year Bandit Jan 2015 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #23
Not CANDO Jan 2015 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #28
Under those rates the middle class was born and guess what...The Rich still got richer Bandit Jan 2015 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #34
Mr Republican stevedtx hollowdweller Jan 2015 #38
When you start getting past $500k per year, you cannot honestly claim that someone is "earning" it. Nihil Jan 2015 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #16
Yes, but the article's description of the calculation change is inaccurate as well forest444 Jan 2015 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #20
This forum is for Democrats CANDO Jan 2015 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #31
Point by point CANDO Jan 2015 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #36
Mr Republican stevedtx hollowdweller Jan 2015 #39
Extrapolating macro-economics to a personal finances LanternWaste Jan 2015 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #14
Mr Republican Stevedtx?? hollowdweller Jan 2015 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #44
You mean Dowdy Doody!!? forest444 Jan 2015 #6
So many RW lunatics........ wolfie001 Jan 2015 #10
I get confused - is this the new math republican CBO rurallib Jan 2015 #3
Where is the link? James48 Jan 2015 #4
Yes where is the confounded link? underpants Jan 2015 #29
It Can't Be! M$M didn't say so. They have to say that SS has to be cut! freshwest Jan 2015 #7
Repubs run up deficit. Dems pay it down. Repubs run up deficit. Dems pay it down. Repubs run Dont call me Shirley Jan 2015 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author stevedtx Jan 2015 #30
We're saying democrats do a better job at the economy. hollowdweller Jan 2015 #40
and that's the bottom line! Stellar Jan 2015 #41
War is always a major part of the debt explosion. War is a racket. Dont call me Shirley Jan 2015 #42
Rightists will ignore this fact News Breaker Jan 2015 #43

wolfie001

(2,131 posts)
1. That redneck turd running the Benghazi hearings.......
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:53 PM
Jan 2015

.....is surely going to announce something to counter this. He needs to reform his troops every now and then.

Response to wolfie001 (Reply #1)

forest444

(5,902 posts)
5. It may not be good news to some
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:15 AM
Jan 2015

But it's certainly in a different league from the $1.3 trillion Obama inherited from George W-for-War Bush.

And at 2.6% of GDP, this deficit would be smaller in relation to the overall economy than any of the deficits chalked up under Reagan or the elder Bush (3% is the internationally-accepted norm; it was 9% when Obama took office).

Context always, Steve.

Response to forest444 (Reply #5)

wolfie001

(2,131 posts)
9. Maybe if we give more to the Mittens of the world, all will be well.
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:29 AM
Jan 2015

Some more to the .01% and they'll let us trim the hedges for a few pennies. We don't need SS/Medicare anyway. Can't wait. Maybe Greece can give us some austerity pointers.

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
11. We could solve this very easily...
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:46 AM
Jan 2015

Let's tax billionaires the way they used to be taxed under Eisenhower. The deficit would be solved in the near term and the debt a little longer. Tax cuts for the wealthy haven't worked....see our current fiscal state for proof. Wealth confiscation? Absolutley!

Response to CANDO (Reply #11)

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
24. Even if the actual rate was not 91%
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 07:58 PM
Jan 2015

It would still work. It worked then and it would work now. So maybe with various loopholes they pay a rate of 70%? That works for me. If they bitch about it, I'd gladly switch places with them.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
15. Republicans know how to fix this... Tax Cuts for the wealthy...
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 02:06 PM
Jan 2015
Is that your suggestion as well?

Response to Bandit (Reply #15)

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
18. The problem is we have more going out than we have coming in.
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:21 PM
Jan 2015

Republicans want to keep it that way. Democrats want to raise taxes on those that can afford it. Increasing revenues is the very first step, not the last step.. We have cut pretty much to the bone, and yet still huge deficits.. Until we come to the realization that Republicans have been spreading the horseshit pretty heavily about supply side economics and that it just plain does not work. Never has and NEVER will.. Raise taxes on the wealthy or just give up.. There is no other workable solution.

Response to Bandit (Reply #18)

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
22. Anybody making over five hundred thousand dollars a year
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:41 PM
Jan 2015

And just go back to the rate under Reagan. That should do a lot toward fixing our situation..

Response to Bandit (Reply #22)

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
26. Not
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 08:13 PM
Jan 2015

Marginal rates apply. The more you make, the higher the rate goes, but only on the money after that margin, not on the entire earnings. But you knew that already, or you're just being deceitful.

Response to CANDO (Reply #26)

Response to Bandit (Reply #33)

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
38. Mr Republican stevedtx
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:52 AM
Jan 2015


The idea that we need to simplify tax codes to eliminate loopholes is republican code talk for let us revise the tax code so we can drop the rates, we'll elimnate loopholes and then put them back in when nobody is watching..
 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
35. When you start getting past $500k per year, you cannot honestly claim that someone is "earning" it.
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 09:40 AM
Jan 2015

"Receiving" it? Definitely.

"Winning" it? Yes (for a good gambler).

"Living off inheritance"? Most definitely.

"Earning"? Not so much.

Response to forest444 (Reply #5)

forest444

(5,902 posts)
19. Yes, but the article's description of the calculation change is inaccurate as well
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:24 PM
Jan 2015

Because it sneakily fails to mention that the addition of R&D spending to GDP was applied to all years, not just the last one. That, as you know, makes GDP figures -and thereby growth- fully comparable over the time series of the data.

In other words: no, Obama didn't just tack on an extra 3% to GDP to make it look like the economy grew 3% more than it actually did.

That would be Karl Rove, who is widely believed to have ordered implicit GDP prices (and possibly consumer price data as well) tampered with in 2005 in order to show 2-3% inflation and thereby allow the Bush regime to boast positive GDP growth as late as the second quarter of 2008 (!) - a full two years after the great recession actually started, if prices had been accurately measured.

Or as Dubya might put it:

"Look, ma! No recession!"

Response to forest444 (Reply #19)

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
25. This forum is for Democrats
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 08:08 PM
Jan 2015

You are obviously a Republican. Be gone with you! The workforce participation rate wasn't the first clue, btw. The subtle attempt to defend low taxes on billionaires was the first. Hell, even moderate Republicans support higher taxes on billionaires.

Response to CANDO (Reply #25)

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
32. Point by point
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:44 AM
Jan 2015

I wasn't the person saying 500k is wealthy. I agree that is wealthy by any standard. I believe marginal tax rates in the range we're discussing would kick in far above the 500k. I've heard Thom Hartmann suggesting that in today's dollars, the rates seen in the 1950's would kick in at the top rates with income nnear 3 million per yr. Confiscatory rates of taxation on the truly wealthy is healthy for not only our economy, but also for our democracy.

And the labor participation rate is just the latest Republican/conservative media driven negative talking point. If they gave a shit, they'd do something about it rather than just squeal like swine incessantly. I'm sure President Obama would gladly sign a real infrastructure spending/jobs bill tomorrow if the gop congress really gave two shits about it.

Response to CANDO (Reply #32)

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
39. Mr Republican stevedtx
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:53 AM
Jan 2015

arguing that statistics are not reliable is a hallmark of republican fact denying.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
13. Extrapolating macro-economics to a personal finances
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 01:25 PM
Jan 2015

Extrapolating macro-economics to a personal finances is the same as believing a moon landing is much the same as backing a car out of the driveway and driving it around the block.

Response to LanternWaste (Reply #13)

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
37. Mr Republican Stevedtx??
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 11:49 AM
Jan 2015


First your attempt to give credit to your fellow republicans by saying the cuts reduced the deficit is wrong. It's increasing revenues due to the economy turning around.

Second the US has a large debt, in order to pay off the debt or reduce it in any way you have to stop spending more than you are taking in. That means before you can pay any of the debt off you have to get rid of the deficit.

So it is good news.

Response to hollowdweller (Reply #37)

forest444

(5,902 posts)
6. You mean Dowdy Doody!!?
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:24 AM
Jan 2015

I wouldn't worry none about'im. That boy's about as useless as tits on a boar.

wolfie001

(2,131 posts)
10. So many RW lunatics........
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:39 AM
Jan 2015

.......they're all so nasty, trying so hard to fuck up this country. So much for the pursuit of happiness. That went out the door with the 2000 Gore/Bush verdict.

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
27. Repubs run up deficit. Dems pay it down. Repubs run up deficit. Dems pay it down. Repubs run
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 08:18 PM
Jan 2015

up deficit. Dems pay it down.

Noticing a pattern emerging?

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #27)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»CBO: Deficit to shrink to...