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
wolfie001
(2,131 posts).....is surely going to announce something to counter this. He needs to reform his troops every now and then.
Response to wolfie001 (Reply #1)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
forest444
(5,902 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
wolfie001
(2,131 posts)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)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)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)Response to Bandit (Reply #15)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)And just go back to the rate under Reagan. That should do a lot toward fixing our situation..
Response to Bandit (Reply #22)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Response to Bandit (Reply #33)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)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)"Receiving" it? Definitely.
"Winning" it? Yes (for a good gambler).
"Living off inheritance"? Most definitely.
"Earning"? Not so much.
Response to forest444 (Reply #5)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
forest444
(5,902 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)arguing that statistics are not reliable is a hallmark of republican fact denying.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)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)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
forest444
(5,902 posts)I wouldn't worry none about'im. That boy's about as useless as tits on a boar.
wolfie001
(2,131 posts).......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.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)or the old way of counting CBO?
James48
(4,416 posts)it's not there.
Can you insert the hot link?
underpants
(182,279 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)up deficit. Dems pay it down.
Noticing a pattern emerging?
Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #27)
stevedtx This message was self-deleted by its author.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Not your party.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)End of story.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)News Breaker
(14 posts)As usual.