White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...43253522341850.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

Mr. Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year, part of a plan that includes budget cuts and tax increases that administration officials believe will sharply bring down the federal deficit over 10 years.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have to applaud the president for talking a good game, but they still don't get it.

$3.73T is an overall increase in spending, up from $3.55T. I don't see any actual cuts, just reshuffling of deck chairs on the titanic.

In order to make a real dent, federal spending has to move toward the $2.4T the government actually takes in, not away from it.

I don't know why anyone would trust these people at their word. $800B in stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% (FALSE). The deficit would be cut in half by 2011 (it's the highest EVER, FALSE).

 

[MARIS61]

Gotta spend money to make money.

Simply raising taxes on the uber-wealthy while cutting the myriad of subsidies to their businesses is a simple way to balance the budget.

Taxes today on the rich are nearly non-existent compared to pre-Reagan America.

Alzheimer Ron cut the top rate from 70% to 50%, creating the largest deficit in history. But more importantly, he cancelled the common man's medical deductions and destroyed the unions, setting back wages several decades. The minimum wage would be $40+ hr now if it had kept pace with inflation. A strong middle-class is required for a strong economy.

To post blame on anyone now for the damage done back then demonstrates an lack of understanding of cause and effect, and accomplishes nothing. Restoring the tax code to pre-Ronnie levels would have this country back on it's feet in no time at all.

 

[maxiep]

I am so looking forward to this budget fight. I'm in the camp that cutting $100B from discretionary spending, even for the remainder of FY 2011, is an insult for those who wish to constrain the budget. I hope the House does move forward with passing appropriations in sections, first with entitlements and the military, and then with the discretionary parts of the budget. Make the Democratic Senate vote for massively increasing deficits to continue wasteful discretionary government programs.

 

[Denny Crane]

Gotta spend money to make money.

Simply raising taxes on the uber-wealthy while cutting the myriad of subsidies to their businesses is a simple way to balance the budget.

Taxes today on the rich are nearly non-existent compared to pre-Reagan America.

Alzheimer Ron cut the top rate from 70% to 50%, creating the largest deficit in history. But more importantly, he cancelled the common man's medical deductions and destroyed the unions, setting back wages several decades. The minimum wage would be $40+ hr now if it had kept pace with inflation. A strong middle-class is required for a strong economy.

To post blame on anyone now for the damage done back then demonstrates an lack of understanding of cause and effect, and accomplishes nothing. Restoring the tax code to pre-Ronnie levels would have this country back on it's feet in no time at all.

The problems really seem to be with Social Security and Medicare. Blame Bush for hastening the demise Medicare. Otherwise, if you understand so much about cause and effect, you'd be harping on FDR for blowing up the govt. to ridiculous size and committing the spending of future dollars on current expenses without the hope of that ever changing.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Continuing to raise taxes on the "wealthy", however one defines that, certainly isn't going to solve a budget issue. That's how we got in this mess- rising taxes for social spending. Maybe rather than making the same old mistake (tax & spend), perhaps we should look at trimming a bloated budget, reassess where our money is being wasted (both within social programs and elsewhere), and then lower taxes to support growth.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/debt-now-equals-total-us-economy/

Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP - the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm waiting for some "believer" to tell me Obama actually is cutting the budget (because he says so!).

 

[MARIS61]

Continuing to raise taxes on the "wealthy", however one defines that, certainly isn't going to solve a budget issue. That's how we got in this mess- rising taxes for social spending.

No it isn't.

We got into this mess by transferring onto the backs of the middle-class the debt accumulated by the government to further enrich the rich.

We had a record surplus that Bush blew completely in his first term. In 8 years he literally spent more money than any man in the history of the world, none of it his own.

He should have been impeached for violating his fiduciary duty to his country.

 

[blazerboy30]

No it isn't.

We got into this mess by transferring onto the backs of the middle-class the debt accumulated by the government to further enrich the rich.

We had a record surplus that Bush blew completely in his first term. In 8 years he literally spent more money than any man in the history of the world, none of it his own.

He should have been impeached for violating his fiduciary duty to his country.

And now Obama is making Bush look very fiscally conservative. Should Obama be impeached?

 

[mook]

The Pentagon wants the largest spending budget since WWII.

We're planning on spending $750 billion on the military budget. Every household in the US would have to pony up $7,000 just this year to pay for it, if we weren't borrowing for it. That's just insane.

 

[maxiep]

The Pentagon wants the largest spending budget since WWII.

We're planning on spending $750 billion on the military budget. Every household in the US would have to pony up $7,000 just this year to pay for it, if we weren't borrowing for it. That's just insane.

Obama wants to spend more on the military than does the GOP. There's plenty of waste to be cut from the Pentagon, the question is does Washington have the will to face it? It seems the GOP is just addressing discretionary spending for the rest of FY2011 but will address everything come FY2012.

 

[blazerboy30]

The Pentagon wants the largest spending budget since WWII.

We're planning on spending $750 billion on the military budget. Every household in the US would have to pony up $7,000 just this year to pay for it, if we weren't borrowing for it. That's just insane.

I'm not arguing, but your post actually made me consider an interesting question. If the $7,000 per household is too much, how much would you be willing to spend on the military for an attempt to keep this country and your family safe? Tough to put a number on that one.

 

[Sug]

You all just don't get it do you? Nobody is going to do a thing to end the debt. Deal with it.

 

[maxiep]

You all just don't get it do you? Nobody is going to do a thing to end the debt. Deal with it.

Care to come to a Tea Party meeting?

 

[MARIS61]

I'm not arguing, but your post actually made me consider an interesting question. If the $7,000 per household is too much, how much would you be willing to spend on the military for an attempt to keep this country and your family safe? Tough to put a number on that one.

I'd think about $500 per person per year should be more than adequate to defend our country from attack. 90% or more of the military budget is spent defending other countries and overthrowing other countries. Graft has been rampant in defense spending since the late fifties. Maybe 1/3rd of the total military budget is lost through criminal overcharges by defense contractors. It's not like Ike didn't warn us

 

[bluefrog]

I'm not arguing, but your post actually made me consider an interesting question. If the $7,000 per household is too much, how much would you be willing to spend on the military for an attempt to keep this country and your family safe? Tough to put a number on that one.

I think $3,000 per household is enough. If we go by the US 2010 census there are about 115 million households which would put the defense budget at $345 billion. That's more than the rest of the entire world's military expenditure and over three times the military spending of China. (I got all these numbers from wikipedia)

What do you think is adequate?

 

[blazerboy30]

I think $3,000 per household is enough. If we go by the US 2010 census there are about 115 million households which would put the defense budget at $345 billion. That's more than the rest of the entire world's military expenditure and over three times the military spending of China. (I got all these numbers from wikipedia)

What do you think is adequate?

I don't know what is adequate, but your numbers seem reasonable. I think it is important to stay far ahead of the rest of the world with our military, and that is one of the most important things the government is actually supposed to do.

 

[Natebishop3]

Somebodies gotta pay for those flying saucers we have stowed away in Area 51.

 

[Denny Crane]

Historically (since WW II), our military spending has been 3% to 6% of GDP. Seems like 3% is reasonable to me.

3% of $14T is about $420B, and we're spending closer to $800B. I'd be happy if govt. cut spending to the $420B figure.

As far as us spending more than anyone else - if every country spends 3% of their GDP on defense, the US would dwarf the rest, militarily. Our GDP is 1/3 the entire world's GDP.

 

[BrianFromWA]

North Korea spends 38% of it's GDP on military...in addition to subsidies from other countries.

China's is at 4.8%.

I don't dispute that there are cuts that can (and/or should) be made to defense spending. But many of you are taking a very myopic view of what the military does.

As one example, trade costs go up significantly if a shipping company has to protect itself/cover its losses from piracy/theft on the high seas or extortion through choke points. You may not want to pay for a navy, but it will also cost significantly more than that to pay for increased trade, oil, etc.

Besides the 7000k number is bogus. Let's assume we can make cuts to, say, China levels (4.8% of GDP). That makes it 4.8% * $14.8T or $700B. That makes the DoD budget ~30-35% of projected income taxes. If you don't pay 21k a year in federal taxes (and I assume many of you don't) you're not coming close to that $7000/yr level. For those paying 9k a year in federal taxes, you're already at that 3000/yr level.

The bigger question for me is: if 15.3% of my wages are already going to medicare/medicaid/ss, why are $608B ($1438B in outlay - $830B in receipts) being paid in addition to those taxes? You want to cut the military in half, and $7000/family is too high for a world-wide-capable professional volunteer military, but you're not bringing up 15% PLUS ~$6000 per family to go to SS/M/M? Seriously?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the idea is to cut OFFENSE and leave the DEFENSE.

I don't see how cutting back to Clinton era levels of defense spending is going to somehow make us weak. We're not only the strongest nation in the world, militarily, but the strongest by a longshot.

 

[PapaG]

Everything out of Obama's mouth is a lie these days. This is from his own budget that he submitted to Congress. I sure don't see a shrinking deficit, nor do I see a shrinking debt. He assumes a GDP growth that is simply pulled from thin air to tell these lies, but the hard numbers are sobering.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I generally don't do this, but I'd like to bump to hear someone back up their opinion on it. Denny, Maris, Mook, bluefrog?

Besides, the $7000k number is bogus. Let's assume we can make cuts to, say, China levels (4.8% of GDP). That makes it 4.8% * $14.8T or $700B. That makes the DoD budget ~30-35% of projected income taxes. If you don't pay 21k a year in federal taxes (and I assume many of you don't) you're not coming close to that $7000/yr level. For those paying 9k a year in federal taxes, you're already at that 3000/yr level.

The bigger question for me is: if 15.3% of my wages are already going to medicare/medicaid/ss, why are $608B ($1438B in outlay - $830B in receipts) being paid in addition to those taxes? You want to cut the military in half, and $7000/family is too high for a world-wide-capable professional volunteer military, but you're not bringing up 15% PLUS ~$6000 per family to go to SS/M/M?

To reiterate, I'm not averse to cutting back to Clinton levels if you cut back to Clinton missions. If you want to go isolationist and bring the troops home, the budget will automatically be cut reflecting that. If you want to keep sending our people into harm's way, you gotta pay for them. And the cost of a US troop is far less than paying the cost for a UN troop (US funds ~30% of UN budget) for the same job.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clinton era levels were enough for us to get into two simultaneous wars, and we sure seemed prepared. If there was any one real problem, it was a choice to go for electronic surveillance over human operatives, and that sort of mix seems like it could be adjusted.

The lesson (I) learned from Iraq is that our forces were ill prepared for the task that followed mission accomplished (and it was accomplished, Iraq govt. and military wiped out). We didn't need soldiers and pilots and sailors so much as we needed engineers and policemen and folks suited for helping set up infrastructure institutions.

I don't want our troops in harm's way for decades at a time. The three week variety, every once in a great while and done right, seems like what our posture should be.