Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade

[jbluhm86]

The Fiscal Times: Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade: CBO

The U.S. budget deficit is expected to top $1 trillion in fiscal year 2020 and remain above that level indefinitely, lifting the national debt over the next decade to its highest level since World War II, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in its annual report on the nation’s fiscal and economic outlook.

CBO expects the deficit will rise from just over $1 trillion this year to more than $1.7 trillion in 10 years, averaging $1.3 trillion from 2021 through 2030. As a share of gross domestic product, the deficit is projected to rise from 4.3% next year to 5.4% in 2030.

“Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project—nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel said in a statement accompanying the report. Swagel called the budget outlook “challenging” and “worrisome.”

As a result of the continuing deficits, the debt held by the public will rise from $17.2 trillion today, or 80% of GDP, to $31.4 trillion, or 98% of GDP, by 2030. “The long-term projections for the debt are higher than they were last year because the federal government's revenues are expected to decrease and spending is expected to increase due to legislation enacted by Congress in 2019,” the Washington Examiner’s Nihal Krishan explains.

• The deficit is rising despite healthy economic growth: The economy is in its 11th year of expansion, and CBO expects gross domestic product to grow by 2.2% this year, up 0.1 percentage point from its August estimate (but shy of the Trump administration’s 3% annual target). While deficits typically shrink during periods of prolonged economic growth, the budget shortfall has surged as the result of the 2017 Republican tax law and a series of spending increases passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. And CBO expects economic growth to slow to an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2021 through 2030.
• What’s widening the budget gap: More than half the current deficit is due to recent tax cuts and spending increases. Revenues are weaker than they would be without the 2017 tax overhaul, and federal spending is projected to grow faster than tax receipts, driven by increased spending for mandatory programs and interest payments on the debt, which CBO expects to rise as the government continues to borrow and interest rates eventually move higher. Spending for Medicare is expected to rise from $835 billion this year to more than $1.7 trillion by 2030, while outlays for Social Security are forecast to climb from just under $1.1 trillion to more than $1.9 trillion. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, points out that the annual shortfall for Social Security and Medicare benefits payments will rise from $440 billion to nearly $1.9 trillion. “That's the ballgame,” he tweeted.
• And deficits could be higher than CBO forecasts: The projections assume Congress will allow some of the 2017 tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2025. If Congress extends the individual tax cuts, as it may be likely to do, the deficits and debt would be larger than CBO projects.
• Low interest rates buy the government some time: Lower-than-expected rates have thus far served to provide some fiscal breathing room, as interest cost come in lower than projected. “Since CBO’s last budget forecast in August 2019, projected interest costs have declined by $441 billion over a decade, reflecting rates that are 0.3 percentage point below the previous estimate,” The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin writes. But lawmakers have more than offset those gains, he explains: “loss of revenue from tax cuts enacted in December 2019 exceeded those savings, and CBO now projects budget deficits to be 1.3% larger than it did in August.”

Still, low rates may make addressing the short-term deficit picture less urgent. “To be sure, interest rates remain low today, suggesting that there is time to address our fiscal challenges and that fiscal policy could be used as a tool to address other challenges facing the nation, if the Congress chose to do so,” Swagel says in his statement. “But our projections also suggest that over the long term, changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the budget situation, because our debt is growing on an unsustainable path.”

But the deficits aren’t being used to invest in the future: “Trump is wasting these deficits,” Robert C. Hockett, a Cornell University professor who has advised Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on economic policy, told The Washington Post. “It’s fine to engage in deficit spending, but Trump has used them to give tax cuts to billionaires, which does nothing to increase the well-being of the vast majority of Americans or improve the nation’s productivity.”

[Vambo]

The Green New Deal will fix it...Free jobs, free healthcare for the world free free free!

[jbluhm86]

Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.

🤔🤔🤔

[OldBrownsFan]

4 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.

🤔🤔🤔

The problem is a spending problem and until there is a will to cut spending we will continue to run up debt. We really are in trouble. I don't think we are going to get serious until it becomes a crisis and then we will be forced at that time to make painful cuts. 

 At least with Trump we got a great economy for the tax cuts while with Obama we had the worst economic recovery after a recession since WW2 while still running up the debt.

I don't think the democrats are going to approve any spending cuts unless it is the military. Until the republicans would get a filibuster proof Senate there won't be any spending cuts. Our budgets right now to get approved in the Senate seems to be both parties get about all the spending they want and that is the "compromise". 

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

27 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The problem is a spending problem and until there is a will to cut spending we will continue to run up debt. We really are in trouble. I don't think we are going to get serious until it becomes a crisis and then we will be forced at that time to make painful cuts. 

 At least with Trump we got a great economy for the tax cuts while with Obama we had the worst economic recovery after a recession since WW2 while still running up the debt.

I don't think the democrats are going to approve any spending cuts unless it is the military. Until the republicans would get a filibuster proof Senate there won't be any spending cuts. Our budgets right now to get approved in the Senate seems to be both parties get about all the spending they want and that is the "compromise". 

 

Both parties have had majorities where they can do whatever they wish. Our two parties are never going to willingly cut spending in any significant way. They will never want their party to be the one that pushed austerity.

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Both parties have had majorities where they can do whatever they wish. Our two parties are never going to willingly cut spending in any significant way. They will never want their party to be the one that pushed austerity.

That only happened once that I can remember and that was Obama's first term in office where he did have a filibuster proof Senate for a short time.

[LogicIsForSquares]

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

That only happened once that I can remember and that was Obama's first term in office where he did have a filibuster proof Senate for a short time.

Realistically, there have been blue dog Dems and RINOs that could have made filibuster proof legislation possible. However, we both know that there will not be anything meaningfully done about spending because it is political suicide for the party stuck with the task.

[Canton Dawg]

10 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.

🤔🤔🤔

Maybe we can elect Comrade Bernie. . .that will fix EVERYTHING!

[calfoxwc]

the Tea Party was never "foaming at the mouth".

The federal deficit is a dangerously huge problem. But the dems own the House. they create the budget. They control the purse strings.

and far too many reps have kicked the can down the road. You can bet it would go down if Trump had the LINE ITEM VETO.

eight years of obaMao commie inflating our debt, and we couldn't get ONE dem to talk about the concern.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

 

Donald J. Trump

2 hrs · 

“Schiff blasted for not focusing on California homeless.” Fox and Friends. His District is in terrible shape. He is a corrupt pol who only dreams of the Impeachment Hoax. In my opinion he is mentally deranged!

[Axe]

[jbluhm86]

11 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

the Tea Party was never "foaming at the mouth".

The federal deficit is a dangerously huge problem. But the dems own the House. they create the budget. They control the purse strings.

and far too many reps have kicked the can down the road...

I think what you mean is that, constitutionally, appropriations bills first originate in the House - which is true. But, the Senate has the power to amend or reject said bills, and send them to committee to settle out the differences. Plus, both houses of Congress need to sigh off on spending bills, plus a signature from the President/veto override, in order to become law. So, overspending and growth of the federal deficit is a Congressional and Presidential problem, not just a House problem.

And, as an interesting aside to your House arguments: since 1995, Democrats have had a majority in the House only from 2007-2011, and 2019 to present. The GOP has had the majority in the House for 20 out of the last 25 years. In the same 25 year time frame, Democrats have had the majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 4 years; GOP had 6.

 

11 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

...eight years of obaMao commie inflating our debt, and we couldn't get ONE dem to talk about the concern.

The facts are, neither party is interested in reigning in the federal debt, no matter who's got the majority in Congress or who has the presidency. The key difference is, while the Democrats have been consistent about expanding the federal government - and, by extension, the federal deficit, the Republicans have been doing the exact same thing while putting on the appearance of being concerned about the deficit. They used the Tea Party to get in office and did nothing to help slow down or alleviate the federal debt either. Both parties are guilty.

 

11 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

...You can bet it would go down if Trump had the LINE ITEM VETO...

I highly doubt that, since he's increased the federal deficit at a faster pace than even Obama did during his presidency. Plus, you have to remember that a Republican will not always be President, and that a Democrat will be in office again in the future. Do you really want to give future Democratic presidents the power of a line item veto?

[jbluhm86]

18 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

...At least with Trump we got a great economy for the tax cuts while with Obama we had the worst economic recovery after a recession since WW2 while still running up the debt

 

On 1/30/2020 at 12:16 AM, jbluhm86 said:

The deficit is rising despite healthy economic growth: The economy is in its 11th year of expansion, and CBO expects gross domestic product to grow by 2.2% this year, up 0.1 percentage point from its August estimate (but shy of the Trump administration’s 3% annual target). While deficits typically shrink during periods of prolonged economic growth, the budget shortfall has surged as the result of the 2017 Republican tax law and a series of spending increases passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. And CBO expects economic growth to slow to an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2021 through 2030.

Great economies don't mean jack shit if your spending continues to outpace economic growth.

[calfoxwc]

13 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

The facts are, neither party is interested in reigning in the federal debt, no matter who's got the majority in Congress or who has the presidency. The key difference is, while the Democrats have been consistent about expanding the federal government - and, by extension, the federal deficit, the Republicans have been doing the exact same thing while putting on the appearance of being concerned about the deficit. They used the Tea Party to get in office and did nothing to help slow down or alleviate the federal debt either. Both parties are guilty.

granted, true that. Between having to upgrade our military after "jimmy carters" trashed that spending, etc...and having to allow more and more social welfare spending, etc etc.

It's an endless round train that never stops.

13 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

I highly doubt that, since he's increased the federal deficit at a faster pace than even Obama did during his presidency. Plus, you have to remember that a Republican will not always be President, and that a Democrat will be in office again in the future. Do you really want to give future Democratic presidents the power of a line item veto?

   only because he doesn't have line item veto. and you are right - I don't ever want the socialist Real America hating anti-Constitution/Bill of Rights sombeitches to ever have line item veto.

It is complicated. But allowing illegals to flood in here by the millions, and give them SS, welfare, housing, health care will doom us all. And that is far, far, far greater than our expenditures on military readiness in wasteful spending....

[OldBrownsFan]

5 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

 

Great economies don't mean jack shit if your spending continues to outpace economic growth.

It means it is better than having a mediocre economy with out of control spending. That is all, not defending out of control spending.

[FairHooker11]

well you gotta spend money to make money...

kicking the can is fun

obamas  TARP (that doubled as his budget that his senate blindly approved for years)  and QE's ad infinitum

not enuf?

 

 

[FairHooker11]

[jbluhm86]

21 minutes ago, FairHooker11 said:

not enuf?

 

 

Well, since Trump is set to exceed the deficits that occured during the Obama administration, you tell me.

Forbes: Trump’s Budget Deficits Could Almost Double Obama’s

"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2008 (the US government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (before Obama was elected) to fiscal 2009 (which was based on Bush’s last budget). It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and increased again in Trump’s first year in office."

• Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
• Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
• Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
• Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
• Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
• Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
• Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
• Fiscal 2016: $587 billion

Comparing Trump’s deficits to Obama’s

Similar to comparing Trump’s job growth during his 29 months in office to Obama’s last 29 months where Trump’s Presidency has generated almost one million fewer jobs, Trump’s federal deficits are projected to zoom past Obama’s when you combine the last four years of Obama’s Presidency to Trump’s first four years. In fact Trump’s could approach doubling Obama’s.

 

There are a few timeframes that are useful to analyze given that a new President doesn’t really have control the fiscal year they are elected and inaugurated and may have minimal impact the first full year. To account for the time lags, below are three rolling four year timeframes for Obama’s last four years in office and Trump’s first four years.

Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:

• 2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
• 2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
• 2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)

Under Trump:

• 2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
• 2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
• 2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)

As you can see the timeframes that use the actual last four years of Obama to Trump’s first four is actually the most favorable for Trump as his cumulative budget deficit is only $1,139 billion more. As time goes by Trump’s are worse by $1,586 billion and then $1,757 billion, respectively.

[OldBrownsFan]

The bottom line is we have a spending problem and neither party will address it because who wants to do any sacrifice as long as we can spend on a credit card. The republicans do better at talking about reducing the debt when they are out of power but they have shown they cannot follow through with reducing the debt when in power. It seems obvious to me that nothing will be done until we hit crisis stage and then are forced by necessity to make painful cuts. We really should be making less painful cuts now but it looks like that is not going to happen.

[Canton Dawg]

4 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Well, since Trump is set to exceed the deficits that occured during the Obama administration, you tell me.

Forbes: Trump’s Budget Deficits Could Almost Double Obama’s

"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2008 (the US government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (before Obama was elected) to fiscal 2009 (which was based on Bush’s last budget). It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and increased again in Trump’s first year in office."

• Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
• Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
• Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
• Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
• Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
• Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
• Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
• Fiscal 2016: $587 billion

Comparing Trump’s deficits to Obama’s

Similar to comparing Trump’s job growth during his 29 months in office to Obama’s last 29 months where Trump’s Presidency has generated almost one million fewer jobs, Trump’s federal deficits are projected to zoom past Obama’s when you combine the last four years of Obama’s Presidency to Trump’s first four years. In fact Trump’s could approach doubling Obama’s.

 

There are a few timeframes that are useful to analyze given that a new President doesn’t really have control the fiscal year they are elected and inaugurated and may have minimal impact the first full year. To account for the time lags, below are three rolling four year timeframes for Obama’s last four years in office and Trump’s first four years.

Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:

• 2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
• 2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
• 2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)

Under Trump:

• 2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
• 2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
• 2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)

As you can see the timeframes that use the actual last four years of Obama to Trump’s first four is actually the most favorable for Trump as his cumulative budget deficit is only $1,139 billion more. As time goes by Trump’s are worse by $1,586 billion and then $1,757 billion, respectively.

Let's not bury our head in the sand.

What platform are ALL the Dem Presidential hopefuls running on?

I'll help you out with that...freebies.

Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.

I  don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.

So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

[tiamat63]

34 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

 but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

 

 

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

 

 

the dishonest inference is, that paying people on the leftwing side to protest, show up, etc... is the same as cash giveaways to communities, I think. Not the same thing.

[Canton Dawg]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480464-trump-supporters-giving-away-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-at-events-in%3famp

 

 

I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[MLD Woody]

Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn

A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.

Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect. 

[tiamat63]

1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said:

I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.

No, I'm not.       You said bribe.      Bribes can be offered with private funds.    Last I checked,  the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.  

[DieHardBrownsFan]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn

A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.

Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect. 

[Canton Dawg]

19 hours ago, Canton Dawg said:

 

Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.

I  don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.

So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.

15 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

No, I'm not.       You said bribe.      Bribes can be offered with private funds.    Last I checked,  the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.  

You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.

The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).

PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.

Most liberals can’t tell the difference.

[tiamat63]

1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said:

You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.

The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).

PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.

Most liberals can’t tell the difference.

This was the best you could come up with?  Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)  

They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury.  I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice.   I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.  

So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong.   Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.

A bribe is a bribe.    And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.   

As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments.  Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit.  It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.

Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last.  So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.

[OldBrownsFan]

One thing that I believe has been documented is that liberals generally speaking are way more generous doling out tax payer dollars than they are with their own money where they are more tight fisted.