BIG SPENDER OBAMA: ANOTHER $1 TRILLION SPENT......

By DAVID ROGERS | 1/31/12 10:06 AM EST Updated: 1/31/12 10:23 AM EST

The government faces a fourth year of trillion-plus deficits in 2012, according to new projections released Tuesday—numbers which also show little relief in the future unless Washington comes to grips with needed changes in its tax and spending policies.

Like Aunt Cassandra coming down from the attic, the Congressional Budget Office steps square into the 2012 campaign season with the 147-page report which might have been subtitled “It’s not just the economy stupid, it’s also the debt.”

The $1.079 trillion deficit now projected for this fiscal year ending Sept. 30 is actually worse than what CBO had predicted in August. And to punch home its message, the non-partisan agency outlines an especially grim scenario in which Congress not only extends all the current tax cuts but pulls the plug on the $1.2 trillion in sequester set in motion by the Budget Control Act last summer.

Under this scenario—which can’t be ruled out politically—deficits would stubbornly hover just under $1 trillion through 2017 adding another $4.7 trillion altogether to the mounting federal debt.

Under the more prudent—and many would say unrealistic scenario of ending tax breaks and implementing cuts—the cumulative deficits would be $1.72 trillion or $3 trillion less from 2013-2017. But even this path comes with a warning from CBO: that debt service costs are already on the rise and will command a ever greater share of the annual budget.

“The federal budget remains out of balance throughout the decade,” the report reads. “The resulting accumulation of debt, along with rising interest rates, drives up the cost of financing that debt; in CBO’s projections, net interest costs grow significantly from 1.4 percent of GDP this year to 2.5 percent in 2022.”

It's Bush's fault.

It's Bush's fault. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is Bush's fault for the tax cuts that gave us this huge deficit and...

it is Obama's and Congresses fault for not letting the Bush tax cuts expire

LOL! Tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. SPENDING causes the deficit.

Don't get too boiled up COG; there are nuts (generally "Progressives") who think that deficits are caused because our government isn't big enough....

They fail to acknowledge that Obama could stop his spending spree and manage our deficits responsibly; instead they prefer to "blame Bush" and let Obama keep spending and demanding more taxes...............

Had the tax rates remained the same, the difference in the debt would be minimal. It's the SPENDING, Stupid!

Not only that; but they would have promised more, borrowed more and spent more. There is no proof that had the Bush tax cuts never happened these politicians would have done the responsible thing and "save for a rainy day".

Had the tax rates remained the same, the difference in the debt would be minimal. It's the SPENDING, Stupid! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Had the tax rates remained the same, the difference in the debt would be minimal. It's the SPENDING, Stupid! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No STUPID Bush spent trillions on the Iraq war and didn't have a sensible plan to have revenue to offset the cost- it was simply retarded of Bush to finance a multi trillion dollar war and give tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% when he should have been raising revenue to pay for the war STUPID!!!! Also, where did the money come from to pay for Medicare Part D? Take away the spending from the Iraq "Fake" War and tell me where the deficit is STUPID!!!

You don't read my posts, do you, WE? You know I agree with you on the Iraq war, and, although I despise the income tax, as long as we have it, I don't understand why the top 2% get a break. So in effect, I agree with you on that. I didn't support Medicare Part D, either, so I agree with you on that. Without all those boondoggles, and I haven't run the numbers, our deficit would be smaller, but I doubt if it would have been eliminated. But President Obama can no longer blame Bush, since his programs have dramatically increased the budget, with no offsetting revenues either. I will grant you that Bush shares some of the blame, but not all of it.

So, let's pull out of Iraq (no, we still have a big presence there), end Medicare Part D, restore tax rates to pre-Bush levels, and see where we're at. My guess is there is a lot more spending to cut before the budget is balanced, but this would be a good start.

If you paid more attention to what I post in other areas, you'd know I'm with you on this one.

You don't read my posts, do you, WE? You know I agree with you on the Iraq war, and, although I despise the income tax, as long as we have it, I don't understand why the top 2% get a break. So in effect, I agree with you on that. I didn't support Medicare Part D, either, so I agree with you on that. Without all those boondoggles, and I haven't run the numbers, our deficit would be smaller, but I doubt if it would have been eliminated. But President Obama can no longer blame Bush, since his programs have dramatically increased the budget, with no offsetting revenues either. I will grant you that Bush shares some of the blame, but not all of it.

So, let's pull out of Iraq (no, we still have a big presence there), end Medicare Part D, restore tax rates to pre-Bush levels, and see where we're at. My guess is there is a lot more spending to cut before the budget is balanced, but this would be a good start.

If you paid more attention to what I post in other areas, you'd know I'm with you on this one. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The big difference is at least when Obama comes out with a plan he proposes a PLAN to pay for it- it's not his fault the GOP refuses to raises taxes on the wealthy. Bush had no such plan for the Iraq War and his Medicare Part D he never had a plan to pay for it- straight to the deficit- there's a big difference in a POTUS who spends but at least has a plan to pay for it(Obama) than a President who spends freely- if one didn't know any better you would have thought Bush was a liberal by the way he spent money.

There's no money for any new plan. The Republicans are just as big spenders as Democrats. You can't trust either one. We need to be eliminating plans and programs, raising taxes is not enough to get us back on track. We have to STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH!!

There's no money for any new plan. The Republicans are just as big spenders as Democrats. You can't trust either one. We need to be eliminating plans and programs, raising taxes is not enough to get us back on track. We have to STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH!! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

true it's a combo of the two but for starters repeal the Bush taxes raises taxes on the wealth- cut the defense budget and get rid of other programs we don''t need.

Preface: I think Bush was a terrible President.

1. Medicaid Part D would have been alot more costly (than the current program) had the Democrats passed the plan they wanted. Bush was a firewall against even greater deficit spending by the Democrats on this one.

2. Obama (and the Democrats) haven't passed a budget in more than 3 years. It is a farce to assert that Obama is being fiscally responsible.

3. Democrats avoided Pay Go on the Iraq War and Afghanistan; I can't recall any legislation that Senator Obama sponsered demanding that the Iraq War be paid for thru spending cuts, war bonds, or tax increases.

If you know otherwise, please provide link.

4. There is an abudance of proof that if the Democrats got more money by taxing the wealthy, they would just spend it ! Not pay down debt, not save for a rainy day.

When has Obama proposed spending less? In fact, all his programs call for more spending, more government, more borrowing, more debt !

5. Obamacare, doesnn't pay for itself ! For you to maintain "when Obama comes out with a plan" he pays for it is a joke !

6. When handed a plan to fiscal sanity (Bowles Simpson), Obama punted. He didn't even try to work towards fiscal responsibility with his own commission.

The big difference is at least when Obama comes out with a plan he proposes a PLAN to pay for it- it's not his fault the GOP refuses to raises taxes on the wealthy. Bush had no such plan for the Iraq War and his Medicare Part D he never had a plan to pay for it- straight to the deficit- there's a big difference in a POTUS who spends but at least has a plan to pay for it(Obama) than a President who spends freely- if one didn't know any better you would have thought Bush was a liberal by the way he spent money. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The big difference is at least when Obama comes out with a plan he proposes a PLAN to pay for it- it's not his fault the GOP refuses to raises taxes on the wealthy. Bush had no such plan for the Iraq War and his Medicare Part D he never had a plan to pay for it- straight to the deficit- there's a big difference in a POTUS who spends but at least has a plan to pay for it(Obama) than a President who spends freely- if one didn't know any better you would have thought Bush was a liberal by the way he spent money. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Good grief!

Do you seriously believe that Obama has any intention of offering even the slightest bit of fiscal rectitude, other than by simply talking about it in speeches? Do you seriously believe that you can cover more than just a very small portion of that phony $800 billion "stimulus package" of 2009, along with all those payroll tax cuts and refundable tax credits of the last three years, with tax increases on the "wealthy?"

George W. Bush and congressional Republicans cut taxes and created an explosion of spending. It was an out-of-control, big-government disaster. Between 2001 and 2008, federal spending increased by about 60% in nominal dollars. And the staggeringly rapid spending increases have continued unabated over the last three years. Obama is simply stacking fiscal failure atop fiscal failure. If you guys want to stick your heads in the sand and pretend that there's never going to be a painful day of reckoning, go for it.

By the way, the manner in which some of you guys prattle on about tax cuts for the "rich" makes me wonder whether some of you have any idea that about 80% of the Bush-era tax cuts went to lower income groups, not to the top 2%. If you only consider taxpayers who are fairly wealthy, not just those in the top 2% of the income strata (roughly equal to the number of taxpayers with annual incomes greater than $250K) the percentage of the total benefits going to the non-affluent would be considerably higher than 80%.

Look at it this way: Last decade's tax cuts for the "wealthy", even if by that adjective you include everyone making over about $250K (which many in the media do), "cost" the Treasury, at the most, about one-third of one percentage point of GDP. The U.S. has been running fiscal deficits of around 9% of GDP for the last couple of years.

Are you beginning to see the scope of the problem?