Stan Collender, a former congressional budget official, said the White House's new deficit numbers can't be blamed on Obama. Collender, now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm, said that when President George W. Bush left office the deficit estimate for this fiscal year was $1.2 trillion, and that didn't include a tax adjustment and additional spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, approved this year, that Bush also would have sought. AP source: White House deficit less than projected By JIM KUHNHENN and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers Jim Kuhnhenn And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 11 mins ago WASHINGTON â The federal budget picture will look slightly better next week. Relatively speaking. The White House plans to announce the federal deficit will still be a record breaker, at $1.58 trillion, for the current 2009 fiscal year. But the amount is about $262 billion less than officials predicted earlier this year. That's mostly because the administration erased a $250 billion contingency fund it had penciled into the budget in case Wall Street needed more government help in getting out of the financial crisis. While the numbers still represent a tremendous amount of red ink, they would give the administration the opportunity to say its policies have prevented a more extreme financial crisis and eliminated the need for further bank infusions. Nonetheless, the deficit amount is a huge obstacle for an administration trying to undertake massive policy overhauls in health care and the environment. And the true impact of deficits lies in the coming years. A slow recovery from the recession, as many economists predict, could test Obama's goal of cutting the deficit to $512 billion in 2013 and pressure him to call for deep spending cuts or increases in revenue through tax hikes. Even at $1.58 trillion, the deficit this year would be three times larger than last year. A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its release Tuesday, said the report for the budget year that ends Sept. 30 also will predict Washington will spend $3.653 trillion this year. Revenue, however, would reach only $2.074 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its mid-session review on Tuesday as well. It estimated in June that it expected a deficit of $1.825 trillion. "Whether it's $1.6 trillion or $1.8 trillion, it's pretty bad," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the bipartisan fiscal watchdog The Concord Coalition. "I hope no one tries to spin that as good news." Stan Collender, a former congressional budget official, said the White House's new deficit numbers can't be blamed on Obama. Collender, now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm, said that when President George W. Bush left office the deficit estimate for this fiscal year was $1.2 trillion, and that didn't include a tax adjustment and additional spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, approved this year, that Bush also would have sought. The midsummer report was supposed to have been released in mid-July, but was delayed, leading to speculation that the White House was delaying the bad news until Congress left town for its August recess. Other administrations have delayed releasing their versions of this report during their first year. Obama's budget had included a $250 billion placeholder for a second bailout of the nation's troubled banks but did not ask Congress for it amid concerns the administration was spending too heavily. The administration also had anticipated more banks failing. Instead, banks have begun paying back some of the government bailout money earlier than anticipated. The report comes during a rough patch for Obama's presidency: the rancor surrounding the Democrats' proposed health care overhaul. The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress passed a $787 billion, two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.4 percent in July and appears headed for double digits. Most of that stimulus will occur in the coming 2010 fiscal year. The nation's debt now stands at $11.7 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and ignores previous debt that is still outstanding. Economists predict that an improved economic climate could help reduce the deficit in the 2010 fiscal year to $1.3 trillion, though White House economists had forecast a slightly smaller figure of $1.26 trillion. Obama's promise to reduce the budget deficit to $512 billion in the 2013 fiscal year was based partly on an optimistic economic recovery forecast and by anticipating less spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. "The deficit is obviously very large and a problem," said economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. "But it's not quite as bad as what expectations were a few months ago." Earlier this year, Zandi, whose observations are frequently cited by administration and congressional officials, had predicted that the administration would have to get congressional approval for additional rescue funds for financial institutions. "It's working out better than I anticipated," he said.
Dumb ass quote of the year, bush obviously had to pay for the same tax cuts. Bush's deficits may not be so bad if he didnt have to pay for lyndon johnsons CREATION of medicare. Bush had to pay for the interest as well, and infact he had to pay for it at a higher interest rate. Clinton had by far the best economy of any modern U.S. president during his 8 years of presidency, it was the worldwide tech bubble.
you really need to stop embarrassing yourself, you really do lack brainpower, i mean that honestly since you cannot grasp the content of what i am writing here... I used 2010 for the very reason that I stated - I'm giving him sort of a pass on 2009 for one-time stimulus, but why the stimulus in 2010??? because it isn't stimulus, it's social welfare mandatory increases. ooooohhh Stan Collender said so, OMG what will i do? lol Here's a hint, the 1983 debt was not nearly as high as a percent GDP. here's another hint, I know about inflation. here's a third hint- democrats are not raising taxes right now to pay for this, and blaming tax cuts in 2003 is really stupid when in real dollar terms this represents a leap in mandatory spending over any baseline from 2003. man you are slow, do you move your lips when you read? I addressed all of that already, you again illustrate perfectly why the left should be shot- you refuse to answer the fundamental question I posed and instead try to obfuscate with irrelevent sophistry.
Which brings up another point about war supplementals and the dishonesty of democrats. Sure Bush didn't add it to baseline because he was planning a pullout and drawdown in costs. Supplementals have been the way of doing business for a long time. Here's where the Obama statement get's really infuriating and dishonest. Obama's own future projections of deficit reduction include a war drawdown, it's basically the same 'gimmick' that any president would use. You can just imagine Axelrod, Obama, Pelosi and company sitting around thinking about this. They really make political plans like that- change language a little, modify accounting, and bingo they found a way to portray themselves as 'responsible' at some point in the future.
Listen dumb asses Obama came into office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit,that didn't include spending for the 2 wars as Bush accounting kept that off the books I would be pissed if Obama came into office with a budget surplus and turned it into a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit,but thats not the case Bush came into office with a budget surplus and turned it into a 1.2-1.5 trillion dollar deficit though
1.Bush paid for his tax cuts with deficits and addition to the national debt,which has carried over to Obama 2.The interest that Bush had to pay was due mostly to spending by himself and Reagan
Large majority of TARP has been paid back, so you cant count that on the deficit. Is TARP Profitable? The huge government bailout could have cost taxpayers $700 billion. Now it looks like it might break even. By Daniel Gross Posted Friday, Aug. 28, 2009, at 1:26 PM ET Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson The Troubled Asset Repurchase Program, the controversial $700 billion package passed in the heat of last fall's presidential election campaign, wasn't presented as a bailout of a failed system. Rather, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his allies touted it as an opportunity for the taxpayer to profit by making investments in name-brand companies. Indeed, during the Great Panic of 2008, American taxpayers reluctantly made a series of very expensive investments in blue-chip companiesâFannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the insurer AIG, General Motors. Since these bailouts were designed to halt failure rather than stimulate growth, the return on most of these efforts has been largely intangible. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Panic of 2008, it's clear that the actual cost of the TARP will be a fraction of the original $700 billion estimate and that taxpayers are even turning a profit from the central component of the package. The initial effort that Paulson began, and that his successors in the Obama administration continued, had the characteristics of an investment fund. Under the Capital Purchase Program, the government would borrow from the public at low ratesâ1 percent or so per yearâand lend the money to banks at 5 percent, through the purchase of preferred shares. As investors in troubled companies do, the government demanded something extra: warrants, which are the right to buy a stock at a set price. It's kind of like lending money to someone to buy a house but getting ownership of the basement as part of the deal. The exhaustive spreadsheets at financialstability.gov document the status of the 667 investments made under CPP since last fall. To date, 21 institutions have repaid the principal amount and repurchased the warrants, and 15 more have repaid the principal. Morgan Stanley, which borrowed $10 billion in October 2008, redeemed the preferred shares in June and purchased the warrants for $950 million on Aug. 12, giving taxpayers a return of 12.7 percent, according to SNL Financial. For the 21 companies that bought back the shares and the warrants, the taxpayer received an annualized return of 17.5 percentâwhich is better than most hedge funds have done in the past year. Since many of the largest financial institutions raised private capital to substitute for government capital, the 36 "exits"âa tiny fraction of the transactionsârepresent 34 percent of the total. The bottom line: Taxpayers put $204.4 billion into the banks through CPP and have received $70.2 billion in principal, plus about $10 billion in dividends and warrant payments. The repaid money goes back into Treasury's general fund, while a small amount has been put back to work. On Aug. 21, AmFirst Financial Services in McCook, Neb., received $5 million from the CPP. Today, 633 banks still owe the Treasury $134.2 billion.
listen dumb ass, the two wars were on the books in the 2008 numbers, and the deficit was $455B. The final numbers I put for 2008 and 2010 include the wars you moron, it was the PROJECTIONS that kept supplementals off the books you absolute dumb ass Obama enacted a $700B stimulus, all deficit spending, he did not inherit that Obama increased mandatory social welfare spending by $500B over 2008, he did not inherit that, he did it
It is funny listening to this lunatic try to include TARP in his numbers when TARP is the only program which will come out ahead of the game when it is all said and done. The stimulus was a straight up bill for 700 billion to the tax payer with none of it ever coming back.