CBO: Budget Deficit To Shrink To Lowest Level Of Obama Presidency; 14% Drop In Uninsured
The deficit is about a third of what it was when President Obama took office, and there is a 14% drop in the number of Americans without health insurance thanks to Obamacare.
“Like” us on Facebook for good karma
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2015 Liberaland
38 responses to CBO: Budget Deficit To Shrink To Lowest Level Of Obama Presidency; 14% Drop In Uninsured
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pilotshark January 27th, 2015 at 14:23
and again the RWNJ`s in congress and state capitals have to say OUCH!!
another one of they`er lies and fears bites the dust! another one and another one falls.
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 14:57
I don’t think they will say OUCH! I think the response will be on the order of “the CBO numbers are all skewed! Romney will win in a landslide”, or something like that…
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 16:05
Romney could have won Ohio and Florida……..and still would have lost to Barack!
Pilotshark January 27th, 2015 at 15:23
and again the RWNJ`s in congress and state capitals have to say OUCH!!
another one of they`er lies and fears bites the dust! another one and another one falls.
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 15:57
I don’t think they will say OUCH! I think the response will be on the order of “the CBO numbers are all skewed! Romney will win in a landslide”, or something like that…
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 17:05
Romney could have won Ohio and Florida……..and still would have lost to Barack!
William January 27th, 2015 at 15:27
Does anyone remember the recent right wing bro-mance with Putin? Has anyone else noticed the ruble disintegrating?
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 16:12
I certainly remember the bro-mance which I am sure right wingers will now deny. They are quite good at pretending that stuff never happened as illustrated by their sudden reversal on Bowe Bergdahl.
Was not aware of the economic catastrophe developing in Russia. But thanks to “The Google”, there is a wealth of information to be found on the latest developments as shown here.
On a side note, the latest object of right wing affections, Benjamin Netanyahu is facing an electorate where 65% of the people want him replaced.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ruble-plunging-after-sp-cut-junk-2015-1
The ruble is getting slammed again after S&P cut Russia to junk.
The currency fell over 7%, to over 68 to the dollar, after the S&P cut Russia’s credit rating to BB+.
All ratings below BBB- are considered “junk,” as they are below the lowest investment-grade rating.
William January 27th, 2015 at 16:19
Well?
Putin is anti gay, anti Muslim, anti free press. He supports plutocracy and he has run his nations economy into the dumper.
No wonder the GOP loves him.
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 16:20
I thought that was Sam Brownback. hard to keep up these days with the failings of right wing heroes.
http://cjonline.com/news/business/2015-01-23/brownback-casts-blame-legislature-budget-shortfall
William January 27th, 2015 at 16:27
Does anyone remember the recent right wing bro-mance with Putin? Has anyone else noticed the ruble disintegrating?
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 17:12
I certainly remember the bro-mance which I am sure right wingers will now deny. They are quite good at pretending that stuff never happened as illustrated by their sudden reversal on Bowe Bergdahl.
Was not aware of the economic catastrophe developing in Russia. But thanks to “The Google”, there is a wealth of information to be found on the latest developments as shown here.
On a side note, the latest object of right wing affections, Benjamin Netanyahu is facing an electorate where 65% of the people want him replaced.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ruble-plunging-after-sp-cut-junk-2015-1
The ruble is getting slammed again after S&P cut Russia to junk.
The currency fell over 7%, to over 68 to the dollar, after the S&P cut Russia’s credit rating to BB+.
All ratings below BBB- are considered “junk,” as they are below the lowest investment-grade rating.
William January 27th, 2015 at 17:19
Well?
Putin is anti gay, anti Muslim, anti free press. He supports plutocracy and he has run his nations economy into the dumper.
No wonder the GOP loves him.
arc99 January 27th, 2015 at 17:20
I thought that was Sam Brownback. hard to keep up these days with the failings of right wing heroes.
http://cjonline.com/news/business/2015-01-23/brownback-casts-blame-legislature-budget-shortfall
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 16:05
Last decade republicans ended up giving us a loss of
750K jobs/month, 60,000 closed factories, no private
sector jobs created in a decade, half of high tech
jobs outsourced, 15% of the economy gone, it puts the
nail in the coffin of their arguments that tax cuts
are the only way to go!
Wayout January 27th, 2015 at 20:22
But Obama was supposed to fix all that. He didn’t.
tracey marie January 27th, 2015 at 20:42
he did, try again
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 21:41
Bull!
how’s he supposed to fix anything when the GOP blocks obstructs and filibusters everything!
SteveD January 28th, 2015 at 01:17
“15% of the economy gone,”
Tim, Wayout just doesn’t get that if the private sector won’t “borrow to spend” (run deficits) sufficiently to restore economic output to previous levels, then the federal government needs to spend more (yes, even way more than the $8T he’s obsessing about) in an effort to shore up the economy to regain the previous level of output(GDP). House Republicans have always been aware of this, but their obstructionist party of do-nothingness policies (non-policies?) were only to make BHO look bad by purposefully using the country’s non-existent “spending problem” as a reason to facilitate “necessary cutbacks” which in reality were designed only to attempt to destroy the economy under BHO’s watch. The absolute proof that both entities (public and private) have failed miserably at fully restoring the economy is a current unemployment rate that is still way too high. (“Officially” just below 6%, realistically just in excess of 12%.)
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 17:05
Last decade republicans ended up giving us a loss of
750K jobs/month, 60,000 closed factories, no private
sector jobs created in a decade, half of high tech
jobs outsourced, 15% of the economy gone, it puts the
nail in the coffin of their arguments that tax cuts
are the only way to go!
Wayout January 27th, 2015 at 21:22
But Obama was supposed to fix all that. He didn’t.
tracey marie January 27th, 2015 at 21:42
he did, try again
Tim Coolio January 27th, 2015 at 22:41
Bull!
how’s he supposed to fix anything when the GOP blocks obstructs and filibusters everything!
SteveD January 28th, 2015 at 02:17
“15% of the economy gone,”
Tim, Wayout just doesn’t get that if the private sector won’t “borrow to spend” (run deficits) sufficiently to restore economic output to previous levels, then the federal government needs to spend more (yes, even way more than the $8T he’s obsessing about) in an effort to shore up the economy to regain the previous level of output(GDP). Purse-holding House Republicans have always been aware of this, but their obstructionist party of do-nothingness policies (non-policies?) were designed to make BHO look bad. They purposefully used the country’s non-existent “spending problem” as a reason to facilitate “necessary cutbacks” which in reality were just attempts to actually destroy the economy under BHO’s watch. I believe this borders on treason, but that’s just me. The absolute proof that both entities (the federal govt and the private sector) have failed miserably at fully restoring the US economy is a current unemployment rate that is still way too high. “Officially” it’s just below 6%, realistically it’s just in excess of 12%.
Wayout January 27th, 2015 at 20:21
And what about the 8 trillion dollars added to the debt on Obama’s watch? He is not the fiscal conservative you folks are trying to get everyone to believe he is. As for his healthcare scheme, it came out yesterday that it costs the nation $50,000 per enrollee. Not exactly a big savings there either.
tracey marie January 27th, 2015 at 20:42
It costs money to fight pre-emptive wars that destabilized the rigion, thanks bush. It takes money to fix an economic and housing crash, thanks bush. It takes money to help feed the people who lost their homes and jobs due to the crash, thanks bush. As to your bagger math, try arithmetic
William January 27th, 2015 at 23:28
As for his healthcare scheme, it came out yesterday that it costs the nation $50,000 per enrollee
Link please.
SteveD January 27th, 2015 at 23:50
There are two fallacies in the political fetish for governments reducing debt and moving towards surplus.
The first is to believe that what happens to the private sector is the same as what happens to the government. For example, if the federal government runs a surplus, then so will the private sector. In fact, one is the mirror-image of the other by accounting identity (sectoral balances must always sum to zero).
The second is to make an analogy between “households” (all individuals, families, private businesses, state or local govts as currency USERS) and the federal government (individually unique as the contingent monopolist currency ISSUER) . The correct analogy is between banks and the government, as both are sources of money. However, bank loans must be repaid, which reduces the money supply. The federal government is unique in that it is the sole source of net dollar denominated financial wealth (net financial assets). How does it do this? By running federal deficits. (Federal deficits are “paid for” by entities spending less than their income, ie the SAVERS who eagerly purchase federal govt debt at every sold out govt auction.)
As the federal govt reduces its deficit, the private sector (bank lending) must INCREASE its “borrowing to spend” levels (deficits) by the exact same amount or the output does not get sold. If bank lending or savings spend down doesn’t follow suit, there will be more unemployment and there absolutely will be a reduction in GDP. Individuals, private businesses, state or local govts must have a positive balance of payments (income exceeding expenses), otherwise their debt levels are unsustainable. The federal government does not need to have a positive balance of payments. (The only exception would be if the USA suddenly began to have a gigantic TRADE SURPLUS, but that will never happen in our lifetimes.)
Wayout, you are going to be a “victim” (directly or indirectly) of increasing debt levels public or private, NO MATTER WHAT.
FOUR key economic points (irrefutable):
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars. (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending (public or private) grows the supply of dollars.
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
$50,000? I call BS.
Ian January 31st, 2015 at 13:55
Additional proof of “faith” in the dollar is the record low 30-year Treasury rates. But even if people lose “faith” in the dollar, there are legal issues to creating a currency. Toys R Us used to have Geoffrey dollars, but they were discontinued.
Obewon January 28th, 2015 at 00:23
CBO Proves ‘The ACA reduces federal deficits by $1.5 Trillion in lowered government HC costs and via “$643 B in Medicare taxes on all net income, non compliance penalties for the stubborn and fees.’
‘Obama likely to leave office with another Dem POTUS Surplus’ are due to the ObamaCare $1.5 T+ deficit reductions and the Dems 11 M+ Private Jobs, the stimulus created. https://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/13630053153/in/photostream/ <-BLS March.
SteveD January 28th, 2015 at 02:02
$1.5 T+ deficit reductions means $1.5 T increase in private debt levels just to sustain the same degree of economic output over the same period (GDP). A Federal govt surplus means an automatic private sector deficit. (A trade surplus can offset this, but that isn’t going to happen in the US anytime soon.) Sectoral balances is an accounting identity. It is not conjecture.
Wayout January 27th, 2015 at 21:21
And what about the 8 trillion dollars added to the debt on Obama’s watch? He is not the fiscal conservative you folks are trying to get everyone to believe he is. As for his healthcare scheme, it came out yesterday that it costs the nation $50,000 per enrollee. Not exactly a big savings there either.
tracey marie January 27th, 2015 at 21:42
It costs money to fight pre-emptive wars that destabilized the rigion, thanks bush. It takes money to fix an economic and housing crash, thanks bush. It takes money to help feed the people who lost their homes and jobs due to the crash, thanks bush. As to your bagger math, try arithmetic
William January 28th, 2015 at 00:28
As for his healthcare scheme, it came out yesterday that it costs the nation $50,000 per enrollee
Link please.
SteveD January 28th, 2015 at 00:50
There are two fallacies in the political fetish for governments reducing debt and moving towards surplus.
The first is to believe that what happens to the private sector is the same as what happens to the government. For example, if the federal government runs a surplus, then so will the private sector. In fact, one is the mirror-image of the other by accounting identity (sectoral balances must always sum to zero).
The second is to make an analogy between “households” (all individuals, families, private businesses, state or local govts as currency USERS) and the federal government (individually unique as the contingent monopolist currency ISSUER) . The correct analogy is between banks and the government, as both are sources of money. However, bank loans must be repaid, which reduces the money supply (an accounting identity). The federal government is unique in that it is the sole source of net dollar denominated financial wealth (net financial assets). How does it do this? By running federal deficits. Federal deficits are “paid for” by entities spending less than their income, that is, the SAVERS who eagerly purchase federal govt debt at every sold out govt auction. Not quite a ponzi scheme as long as there continues to be faith in the dollar. Everyone has faith in the dollar. People work, borrow, beg, steal and even kill for dollars. There is no IOU in the world more valuable. (Never once has anyone ever sent me their “worthless dollars” upon my request.)
As the federal govt reduces its deficit, the private sector (bank lending) must INCREASE its “borrowing to spend” levels (deficits) by the exact same amount or the output does not get sold, which will mean more unemployment and a reduction in GDP. Individuals, private businesses, state or local govts must have a positive balance of payments (income exceeding expenses), otherwise their debt levels are unsustainable. The federal government does not need to have a positive balance of payments.
Wayout, you are going to be a “victim” (directly or indirectly) of increasing debt levels public or private, NO MATTER WHAT.
FOUR key economic points (irrefutable):
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars. (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending (public or private) grows the supply of dollars.
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
$50,000? I call BS. Why? In any massive undertaking public or private, the initial cost-of-coordination greatly exceeds return-on-coordination. The first Social Security recipient worked one week prior to retirement (1937) and proceeded to get benefits in excess of 20 years. Yet somehow Social Security remains a massively successful program beloved by virtually all Americans. (Don’t get me started Wayout, if you’ve read this far…I paid into the SS “fund” in excess of 40 years and never once complained about lazy “moochers” getting Social Security. SSTFU.)
Ian January 31st, 2015 at 14:55
Additional proof of “faith” in the dollar is the record low 30-year Treasury rates. But even if people lose “faith” in the dollar, there are legal issues to creating a currency. Toys R Us used to have Geoffrey dollars, but they were discontinued.
Obewon January 28th, 2015 at 01:23
CBO Proves ‘The ACA reduces federal deficits by $1.5 Trillion in lowered government HC costs and via “$643 B in Medicare taxes on all net income, non compliance penalties and fees.’ (Your ‘$50k PP claim’-2009 is debunked by the final CBO scored ACA law that was signed March 23, 2010.)
‘Obama likely to leave office with another Dem POTUS Surplus’ are due to the ObamaCare $1.5 T+ deficit reductions and the Dems 11 M+ Private Jobs, the stimulus created. https://www.aei.org/publication/surprise-obama-might-just-leave-office-with-a-budget-surplus/ Here are the 28 M ACA buyers from 2014 and the 2015: Estimated FINAL 2014 QHPs (as of 11/14/14): 6.7M Current / 8.4M PAID / 9.6M Total |TOTAL: 6.7M Exchange QHPs, 8.0M Off-Exchange QHPs, 10.7M Medicaid/CHIP, 2.0M assorted.
| 2015 ACA Policy Enrollment: 8.7M Paid Exchange QHPs + 13.0M Medicaid/CHIP + 7.8M Off-Exchange/SHOP http://acasignups.net/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/13630053153/in/photostream/ <-BLS March.
SteveD January 28th, 2015 at 03:02
$1.5 T+ deficit reductions means $1.5 T increase in private debt levels just to sustain the same degree of economic output over the same period (GDP). A Federal govt surplus means an automatic private sector deficit. (A trade surplus can offset this, but that isn’t going to happen in the US anytime soon.) Sectoral balances is an accounting identity. It is not conjecture.