PDA

View Full Version : National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says



BigBadBrian
03-06-2010, 08:29 AM
National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2010


President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.

The 10-year outlook released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama's budget request would produce deficits that would add about $8.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020.

The CBO and the White House are in relative agreement about the short-term budget picture, with both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this year -- a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall economy -- and $1.3 trillion in 2011. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the economy under Obama's policies and would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.

Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said. Interest payments on the debt would also skyrocket by $800 billion over the same period.

Obama's tax-cutting agenda is by far the biggest contributor to those budget gaps, the CBO said. As part of his campaign pledge to protect families making less than $250,000 a year from new taxes, the president is proposing to prevent the alternative minimum tax from expanding to ensnare millions of additional taxpayers. He also wants to make permanent a series of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

"Over the next 10 years, those policies would reduce revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of $3.0 trillion," wrote Douglas W. Elmendorf, the CBO director. Combined with interest payments on that shortfall, the tax cuts account for the entire increase in deficits that would result from Obama's proposals.


Obama is convening a special commission to bring deficits down to 3 percent of the economy, but the CBO report shows that Obama could accomplish that goal simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and paying for changes to the alternative minimum tax.

Other policy changes, such as Obama's signature health-care initiative and a plan to dramatically expand the federal student loan program, would have significant effects on the budget, Elmendorf wrote, but they generally would be paid for and therefore would not drive deficits higher.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502974.html)

GAR
03-09-2010, 03:06 AM
HA when I was a kid the national debt then was so small by comparison in the billions, and they had a donations office to contribute to the national debt people actually gave to.

Has there ever been a more thieving administration in our nations history?

BigBadBrian
03-09-2010, 06:49 AM
HA when I was a kid the national debt then was so small by comparison in the billions, and they had a donations office to contribute to the national debt people actually gave to.

Has there ever been a more thieving administration in our nations history?

This is a Democrat/Republican problem, not just one or the other. Just for once, I'd like to see politicians vote for what's best for the country and not what they think will get them re-elected.

Seshmeister
03-09-2010, 08:05 AM
Bet you both feel a bit dumb voting for Bush now...

BigBadBrian
03-09-2010, 08:33 AM
Bet you both feel a bit dumb voting for Bush now...

Nope.

What were the alternatives? algore? Or Kerry? Bush was certainly the lesser of evils.

Just like McCain. I'm certainly not a political fan of his, but he would have been a damn sight better than the SpeechGiver in Chief we now have.

jhale667
03-09-2010, 09:52 AM
You're in complete denial.
Grandpa Munster would have already run the country into the ground, or worse - the stress would have gotten to him and then we'd have the brainless bimbo Palin completely pushing the country over the cliff...yeah, that would have been better. :rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
03-09-2010, 10:18 AM
This is a Democrat/Republican problem, not just one or the other. Just for once, I'd like to see politicians vote for what's best for the country and not what they think will get them re-elected.

So you're for Campaign Finance Reform now?

You oppose the Supreme Court's latest ruling?

Nice to know

:gulp:

BigBadBrian
03-09-2010, 10:36 AM
So you're for Campaign Finance Reform now?

You oppose the Supreme Court's latest ruling?

Nice to know

:gulp:

Partly, yes.

While I think corporations and unions should be allowed to donate to political campaigns, there SHOULD be limits far more imposing than there currently is. Politicians from both sides of the aisle rely on too much money from these entities.

LoungeMachine
03-09-2010, 01:06 PM
Pull the fence post out of your ass.....

kwame k
03-09-2010, 01:55 PM
Partly, yes.

While I think corporations and unions should be allowed to donate to political campaigns, there SHOULD be limits far more imposing than there currently is. Politicians from both sides of the aisle rely on too much money from these entities.

You're for government regulation now, too!

Run Forrest, run.

PETE'S BROTHER
03-09-2010, 02:09 PM
:baaa:

Julius Peppers(notes), Defensive End, Chicago Bears
"Oh, man. I know everyone's worried about how we're going to pay for this health care thing, but you should have me sooner. I probably could've gotten the Bears to pay for the whole damn thing."

Nickdfresh
03-09-2010, 02:10 PM
Nope.

What were the alternatives? algore? Or Kerry? Bush was certainly the lesser of evils.
....


Oh, is that how you rationalize being fucking retarded?

chefcraig
03-09-2010, 02:17 PM
While I think corporations and unions should be allowed to donate to political campaigns, there SHOULD be limits far more imposing than there currently is. Politicians from both sides of the aisle rely on too much money from these entities.

It's a valid point, but I really don't see how any idea of campaign reform would be realistic in today's world. If a politician can be bought, then the influence peddlers (of which there are many) out there will simply find a way to circumvent the legislation. Remember, Prohibition did little to curb the country's taste for alcohol, and in this case, the same could be said for a politician's greed.

Things get even worse when you explore the motivations of the candidates in the first place. In my own state of Florida, there seems to be one common thread running through the resumes of local politicians: they are all involved in real estate brokering. Is it any surprise then, that the state is being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey, with developers and politicians sharing the spoils? The landowners, environmentalists (yes, I'm aware that you can't spell "environmentalist" without the word "mental") and the citizens of this state are left holding the bag, as natural resources are destroyed in the name of so-called progress. Believing that you can simply vote these scumbags out is an exercise in futility, as for each candidate elected there are dozens lining up to take their place. You can find them in the Yellow Pages under realtors.