"Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits.

This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable. America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. Moreover, if deficits are perceived as the problem, that means both spending restraint and higher taxes are solutions. The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa."

In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt."



"But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending)."



"It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

It was pretty much Bush. Obama inherited a crisis and even the
Bush administration would not attempt to deny it.

The single most important thing that Obama and Congress could
do to make better use of our resources would be to cut our
national health care bill in half by going with a single payer
plan - that could save something like 8% of GDP annually or
according to the chart below $1.35 trillion a year if
we can get the spending down to $2500/person per year.

I hope they get on it now. We don't have $1.35 trillion/yr to waste.



That's almost enough to eliminate our annual deficit.

It's nice watching 'true believers' attempt to defend the indefensible ... keep goin' - no one with the ability to think critically or apply rational analysis to problems believes this tripe ... it's nice to see that some still believe they can achieve 'Nomenklatura' status, tho' ... futile, but nice ... Now, here's some 'real world' facts about 'The ONE' and his 'brave new world' of 'hope 'n change' ... btw, how's that 'hopey-changey' thing workin' out for ya ... ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_deficits_3

WASHINGTON – A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.

The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House. The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade.

Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

US deficit tops Obama forecast by 1.2 trillion dollars: CBO

(AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama has underestimated the government budget deficit for the next decade by 1.2 trillions dollars, estimates by Congress showed Friday.

Under Obama's latest budget projections, the cumulative deficit over the 2011-2020 period would be 8.532 trillion dollars, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's economic output.

But the Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday the deficit would snowball to 9.761 trillion dollars or 5.2 percent of GDP.

The CBO expects a deficit "1.2 trillion dollars greater over the 2011-2020 period than what the administration anticipates under the president?s budget," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said in a report Friday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYLqsfHu


The CBO said it also estimated a deficit that was 75 billion dollars higher than projected by the White House for the next fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2011.

The White House had projected that deficit falling to 1.267 trillion dollars, from a record 1.556 trillion dollars in the current 2010 fiscal year.

The CBO also said that Obama's debt projections were optimistic.

By 2020, the federal debt would balloon to 20.3 trillion dollars, or 90 percent of GDP, the CBO said, compared with 18.5 trillion dollars projected by the administration.

Obama, who inherited a flood of red ink from his predecessor George W. Bush, has promised to halve the 1.3-trillion-dollar deficit he took on by 2013.

The president's budget predicts the deficit will tumble to 727 billion dollars, or four percent of GDP, by the end of his term in 2013.

ttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/US-deficit-tops-Obama-forecast-by-12-tn-CBO/articleshow/5649920.cms

US deficit tops Obama forecast by $1.2 tn: CBO
6 Mar 2010, 0638 hrs IST, AGENCIES


WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama has underestimated the government budget deficit for the next decade by 1.2 trillions dollars, estimates by Congress showed on Friday.

Under Obama's latest budget projections, the cumulative deficit over the 2011-2020 period would be 8.532 trillion dollars, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's economic output.

But the Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday the deficit would snowball to 9.761 trillion dollars or 5.2 percent of GDP.

The CBO expects a deficit "1.2 trillion dollars greater over the 2011-2020 period than what the administration anticipates under the president's budget," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said in a report Friday.

The CBO said it also estimated a deficit that was 75 billion dollars higher than projected by the White House for the next fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2011.

The White House had projected that deficit falling to 1.267 trillion dollars, from a record 1.556 trillion dollars in the current 2010 fiscal year.

The CBO also said that Obama's debt projections were optimistic.

By 2020, the federal debt would balloon to 20.3 trillion dollars, or 90 percent of GDP, the CBO said, compared with 18.5 trillion dollars projected by the administration.

Like I said - There are trillions of savings to be had in
reforming health care. Let's do it now and save all the
interest too!

Tell your legislators to stop the wasteful spending, cut our
taxes and reform the giant money pit which is our current
health care system!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-06/obama-spending-plan-underestimates-deficits-budget-office-says.html

Obama Spending Plan Underestimates Deficits, Budget Office Says
March 06, 2010, 12:03 AM EST
More From Businessweek


By Brian Faler

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s budget proposal would create bigger deficits than advertised every year of the next decade, with the shortfalls totaling $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The nonpartisan agency said yesterday the deficit will remain above 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product for the foreseeable future while the publicly held debt will zoom to $20.3 trillion, amounting to 90 percent of GDP by 2020. By then, interest payments on the debt will have quadrupled to more than $900 billion annually, the report said.

Deficits between 2011 and 2020 would total $9.76 trillion, the CBO said.

Economists generally consider deficits topping 3 percent of GDP to be unsustainable because that means government debt is growing faster than the ability to pay back the money.

“The news today from CBO is clear: The president’s budget will continue to lead our nation into a fiscal catastrophe -- an ever worse one than the president’s own numbers suggest,” Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said yesterday.

White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said the report “highlights how sensitive and uncertain budget projections are.”

Baer also said, “What is certain is that the irresponsibility of the past put the country on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory.”

Independent View

The CBO report is designed to give Congress an independent assessment of the administration’s budget request. The difference between the two outlooks is largely attributable to varying economic assumptions that affect projections of how quickly tax revenues will pour into the Treasury.

Revenues will be about $2 trillion less than the administration projects, while spending will be lower by about $600 billion, according to the CBO report.

The administration projected last month the deficit would shrink to as low as 3.6 percent of GDP, with the 10-year shortfall totaling $8.5 trillion. It foresees the debt growing to 77 percent of GDP in 2020.

The deficit for the 2010 fiscal year has been projected to be $1.6 trillion, a record. Obama last month established an 18- member bipartisan panel to suggest to Congress steps that would reduce the shortfalls.

--Editors: Don Frederick, Mike Millard.

-0- Mar/06/2010 05:00 GMT

AMAZING HOW YOU INTENTIONALLY IGNORED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND TOOK YOUR LITTLE QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT.......WHICH DOES NOT SURPRISE ME OR ANYONE ELSE........

I don't think it was out of context at all. Just re-read your post!
The article states that Obama inherited a gigantic financial mess
and that the estimates on the damage are too low.

See?

I WOULD EVER SO KINDLY ASK THAT YOU RE-READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE......ALONG WITH THE OTHER ARTICLES THAT I POSTED.....THANK YOU EVER SO MUCH

YES, do YOU SEE what is contained in the ENTIRE ARTICLE???? WELL, DO YOU SEE?

The article states that Obama inherited a gigantic financial mess
and that the estimates on the damage are too low.

It would be SO refreshing if you showed HALF as much interest in the reform of our POLITICAL system's practices ... like, oh, let's say ... EARMARKS ... 9,000+ of which 'The ONE' signed into LAW when he approved the Pelosi-Reid 'budget' ... or, ohhhhhhhh, the 'porkulus' bill ... MOST of which won't even be distributed until 2012 - but that's 'accidental', right? Maybe an 'oversight' ... ? I prefer to KEEP INTACT the best healthcare system the world has ever seen and address reform to those areas which most run up the cost: TORT REFORM, for one. I'm sure you'd be for this unless you happen to be a ... ummm, what's the word? ... 'TRIAL ATTORNEY'. Then there's allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines. You'd be for that, right ... ? Sure you would. Unless, of course, you were just an agenda-driven sycophant who just lubs 'The ONE' so much that you think he can do no wrong ... remember that chickens (quoting 'Rev' Wright here) have a way of 'comin' home ... ! ... to ROOST ... !"

I want to eliminate earmarks too!

But by most measures our health care system sucks and it should
be trashed.

So you'd prefer maybe the Canadian 'healthcare' system ... ? Or maybe that wonderful 'National Health Service' in 'Great' Britain that recently was charged with letting a patient die because the nursing staff failed to give him WATER to drink for three DAYS ... ? Perhaps you yearn for the days of that good old 'Soviet-style' health care ... ? I can only speculate ... how 'bout providing some SPECIFICS as to what you want ... ? Generalities are easy - specifics are a different story ...

I would take the French system. They have the best rated
healthcare in the world by the World Health Organization
at a cost of half of what we have as a percentage of GDP.

Then, I would improve it to try to make our system once
again the best and most efficient in the world.

Oh. You do (I'm sure) realize that you're putting your faith [sic] in the dubious 'judgement' and 'good will' of the SAME 'World Health Organization' (an oxymoron-in-waiting) that recently declared the 'swine flu / H1N1 / avian-pig-human' PANDEMIC to be nothing more than a fraud, right ... ? Yeah, I'd be real comfortable with them running the show instead of the AMA ... you just might want to reconsider that and think about taking what's behind 'Door Number Two' ...

It is not about the World Health Org. It is about good care.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

or


"Ranking 37th -- Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System" is an article posted online by the New England Journal of Medicine. Excerpt:

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy. These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2610