FY2013 Federal Deficit Projection = 4% of GDP

[djAdvocate]

less than Reagan averaged during his (8) years.
still not where it needs to be, but an improvement over 10%.

comments?

[Deleted]

Hi, dj

I read this in early morning hour today.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-14/cbo-forecasts-then-and-now

A few hours ago, the CBO published its most recent 10 year revised outlook for US revenue and spending: The Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013-2023. Not surprisingly it was, as anything to ever come out of the CBO, overly optimistic. Promptly, the media latched on to the revised deficit expectations according to which the CBO now sees a budget deficit declining from 845 billion to "only" $642 billion in 2013, and dropping to $560 billion the year after. This looks at the short end: the near-term revenue benefits of recent tax increase policy which take from long-term growth (just ask Europe). The fact that the CBO also forecast the deficit proceeding to once again balloon to $895 billion by 2023 at which point the deficit difference between total spending and revenues goes asymptotic once the demographic crunch truly hits, was ignored by all.

[Deleted]

Is this your prediction?  Someone else's prediction?  Obviously 4% is better than 10%.  Is FY2013 the year that ends this fall or next fall?

[Deleted]

Well for one, budget deficit is not even the right number.  It would be change in debt from one year to the next.  Not all spending is on budget.

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 12:50:54 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Hi, dj

I read this in early morning hour today.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-14/cbo-forecasts-then-and-now

A few hours ago, the CBO published its most recent 10 year revised outlook for US revenue and spending: The Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013-2023. Not surprisingly it was, as anything to ever come out of the CBO, overly optimistic. Promptly, the media latched on to the revised deficit expectations according to which the CBO now sees a budget deficit declining from 845 billion to "only" $642 billion in 2013, and dropping to $560 billion the year after. This looks at the short end: the near-term revenue benefits of recent tax increase policy which take from long-term growth (just ask Europe). The fact that the CBO also forecast the deficit proceeding to once again balloon to $895 billion by 2023 at which point the deficit difference between total spending and revenues goes asymptotic once the demographic crunch truly hits, was ignored by all.

it wasn't ignored by me.  however, long term forecasts are totally dismissible, imo.  the short term ones are not terribly accurate.  the long term ones are better known as "guessing".

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 12:54:13 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Well for one, budget deficit is not even the right number.  It would be change in debt from one year to the next.  Not all spending is on budget.

true.  what IS the right number, IB?

[djAdvocate]

edit: if there is not even a HINT of relief by anyone here, i am going to be very disappointed. 

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 13:11:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 15, 2013 12:50:54 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Hi, dj

I read this in early morning hour today.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-14/cbo-forecasts-then-and-now

A few hours ago, the CBO published its most recent 10 year revised outlook for US revenue and spending: The Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013-2023. Not surprisingly it was, as anything to ever come out of the CBO, overly optimistic. Promptly, the media latched on to the revised deficit expectations according to which the CBO now sees a budget deficit declining from 845 billion to "only" $642 billion in 2013, and dropping to $560 billion the year after. This looks at the short end: the near-term revenue benefits of recent tax increase policy which take from long-term growth (just ask Europe). The fact that the CBO also forecast the deficit proceeding to once again balloon to $895 billion by 2023 at which point the deficit difference between total spending and revenues goes asymptotic once the demographic crunch truly hits, was ignored by all.

it wasn't ignored by me.  however, long term forecasts are totally dismissible, imo.  the short term ones are not terribly accurate.  the long term ones are better known as "guessing".

So what are you saying! dj

[workpublic]

if there is not even a HINT of relief by anyone here, i am going to be very disappointed.

i was unemployed with no comprehensive health insurance. now i'm under employed with no comprehensive health insurance.

does that count?

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:17:47 GMT -5 workpublic said:

if there is not even a HINT of relief by anyone here, i am going to be very disappointed.

i was unemployed with no comprehensive health insurance. now i'm under employed with no comprehensive health insurance.

does that count?

only if you are smiling while you type. 

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:15:45 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 15, 2013 13:11:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it wasn't ignored by me.  however, long term forecasts are totally dismissible, imo.  the short term ones are not terribly accurate.  the long term ones are better known as "guessing".

So what are you saying! dj

um, that we are not going to go bankrupt this year? 

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 13:17:47 GMT -5 workpublic said:

if there is not even a HINT of relief by anyone here, i am going to be very disappointed.

i was unemployed with no comprehensive health insurance. now i'm under employed with no comprehensive health insurance.

does that count?

I am very sorry! workpublic

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:20:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

May 15, 2013 13:13:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

edit: if there is not even a HINT of relief by anyone here, i am going to be very disappointed. 

I heard something similar to this on NPR yesterday, and I not only have a hint of relief, I am very glad to hear it.

I know our payroll taxes to the state and feds plummetted in this recession, and now they are going back the other way.  I imagine this is true almost across the board.

i think that has a lot to do with it- but also, INCOME tax revenues are running ahead of projections, apparently.

[Deleted]

The correct number is annual change if federal debt. Which is always worse than budget deficit.

[workpublic]

I am very sorry! workpublic

thanks snow. it is what it is. I'm an American I can persevere. 

only if you are smiling while you type. 


always

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:24:56 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

The correct number is annual change if federal debt. Which is always worse than budget deficit.

if it is proportionally worse, then the number is still an improvement tho, right?

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 13:21:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 15, 2013 13:15:45 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

So what are you saying! dj

um, that we are not going to go bankrupt this year? 

We will never go bankrupt, dj.

Keep the printing press running.

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:28:17 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 15, 2013 13:21:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um, that we are not going to go bankrupt this year? 

We will never go bankrupt, dj.

Keep the printing press running.

ok, fine.  would you prefer the term "hyperinflated"?

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 13:25:43 GMT -5 workpublic said:

I am very sorry! workpublic

thanks snow. it is what it is. I'm an American I can persevere. 

only if you are smiling while you type. 


always

Yes!!   Thank you.

Take care.....workpublic And it's good to hear from you again.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 13:29:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 15, 2013 13:28:17 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

We will never go bankrupt, dj.

Keep the printing press running.

ok, fine.  would you prefer the term "hyperinflated"?

Your choices, which one do you prefer. dj

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 13:32:19 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 15, 2013 13:29:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, fine.  would you prefer the term "hyperinflated"?

Your choices, which one do you prefer. dj

i like the term bankrupt, even though it is less accurate. 

[Deleted]

I know what you are saying, dj.

The matter of fact is still a lot of people is hurting with no fault of their own.
We have a face behind the each computer we type our words in this message board.

I wish all of us well.

[Deleted]

if it is proportionally worse, then the number is still an improvement tho, right?

Sure.

[Deleted]

From the article.

Perhaps the most notable difference is that in 2008, the CBO was predicting that the US budget deficit would turn into a surplus in 2011. Instead ended up being an $1+ trillion deficit for that year alone. Also, in the period between 2008 and 2013, the CBO then forecast a cumulative deficit of just a few hundred billion. Instead, we ended up with deficits of over $5 trillion and, sadly, still rising.

[Deleted]

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-26/total-us-debt-gdp-105

Now that we have the first estimate of Q1 GDP growth in both rate of change and absolute current dollar terms ($16,010 billion), we can finally assign the appropriate debt number, which we know on a daily basis and which was $16,771.4 billion as of March 31, to the growth number. The end result: as of March 31, 2013, the US debt/GDP was 104.8%, up from 103% as of December 31, 2012 or a debt growth rate that would make the most insolvent Eurozone nation blush. There was a time when people were concerned about this unsustainable trajectory, but then there was an infamous excel error, and now nobody cares anymore.

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 14:07:55 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

From the article.

Perhaps the most notable difference is that in 2008, the CBO was predicting that the US budget deficit would turn into a surplus in 2011.

of course.  they didn't see what was going to happen in late 2008 and 2009.  very few did.

Instead ended up being an $1+ trillion deficit for that year alone. Also, in the period between 2008 and 2013, the CBO then forecast a cumulative deficit of just a few hundred billion. Instead, we ended up with deficits of over $5 trillion and, sadly, still rising.

again, this recession turned out worse than MOST predicted.  but your point is well taken about intermediate term forecasts.  they are worthless.

the short term ones are a bit better, however.

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 14:10:37 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-26/total-us-debt-gdp-105

Now that we have the first estimate of Q1 GDP growth in both rate of change and absolute current dollar terms ($16,010 billion), we can finally assign the appropriate debt number, which we know on a daily basis and which was $16,771.4 billion as of March 31, to the growth number. The end result: as of March 31, 2013, the US debt/GDP was 104.8%, up from 103% as of December 31, 2012 or a debt growth rate that would make the most insolvent Eurozone nation blush.

this is not only an exaggeration, it is factually inaccurate.  four nations in Europe have worse debt/GDP ratios than the US.  moreover, the US has done better in terms of getting a handle on the crisis than most of Europe.

There was a time when people were concerned about this unsustainable trajectory, but then there was an infamous excel error, and now nobody cares anymore.

rubbish.  i have been a deficit hawk since Reagan was in office.  people have never cared more than they do RIGHT NOW.

[jkapp]

I think it would especially tough to do any kind of forecasting past 2013 considering the CBO can't seem to get any handle on what Obamacare will cost us - and that program starts to ramp up in 2014...

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2013 14:45:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I think it would especially tough to do any kind of forecasting past 2013 considering the CBO can't seem to get any handle on what Obamacare will cost us - and that program starts to ramp up in 2014...

agreed.  so, what do you think of the FY2013 forecast, jk?  does it make you smile, or frown?

[jkapp]

May 15, 2013 14:50:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 15, 2013 14:45:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I think it would especially tough to do any kind of forecasting past 2013 considering the CBO can't seem to get any handle on what Obamacare will cost us - and that program starts to ramp up in 2014...

agreed.  so, what do you think of the FY2013 forecast, jk?  does it make you smile, or frown?

For now, it just makes me chuckle   I don't start to trust any government numbers this early in the year...just from the fact that a lot can happen in just a few months. 

However, I have to wonder if the picture is better because congress has been at a stand-still since Q4 of last year?  Less damage can be done when politicians do nothing