Congressional budget analysts say Obama budget pares deficits by $1.1 trillion over decade

  • Article by: ALAN FRAM , Associated Press
  • Updated: May 17, 2013 - 11:08 PM
  • 18
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
theagonybhoMay. 17, 13 3:12 PM

1 trillion in 10 years thats great, Obama added 6 trillion in 4 years and we will be 20 trillion in debt when he leaves, a grain of sand on the beach.

5
11
JP55901May. 17, 13 5:14 PM

@theagony: Funny how when Clinton left office he had budget surplusses. When Bush left office he increased the deficit because of his budget deficits though in fairness it was Cheney who said deficits don't matter. And, if you look at the deficits under Obama almost half is for spending on things such as saving the auto industry and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (that Bush did not account for in his budget).

11
5
theagonybhoMay. 17, 13 5:56 PM

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion. As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

4
9
theagonybhoMay. 17, 13 6:01 PM

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus. For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed $152.3B from Social Security $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund $7.0B from others Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit). If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

3
9
comsenMay. 17, 1310:22 PM

The economy depends upon many things so to look at an era, qualify the situation. Clinton was president in one of the most ideal situations of many years. He inherited a rising GDP. His tax increase, Republican congress put the brakes on spending, the bursting dot.com economy predicted 20 years earlier all created a drop in the deficit. Bush inherited a falling economy, 9/11 cost America 2 trillion, the two wars happened although they did not cost as much as 9/11, the entitlement cost rose sharply and the mortgage industry went berserk causing a crash. Obama inherited a mess and made it worst. He spent money on special interest groups and passed ObamaCare a real job killer and a future black hole for taxpayer money. He made every bad move in the book to kill jobs preventing a recovery. The deficit is in a range unimagined before Obama.

1
8
omitfactsMay. 18, 13 9:31 AM

Im not going to comment on previous administrations. All I know is Obama has added almost 7 trillion dollars to our deficit, we have a net loss of jobs, we have record numbers of people receiving entitlements. 17 million Americans are unemployed, and this administration has been surrounded by scandals and controversy from the beginning. I know one thing.......Obama has been a disaster and if you cant admit that, you are beyond reason.

2
7
dogmanMay. 18, 1310:02 AM

I'm not going to comment about people who post large sections of an article and pass it off as their own words, I'm not going to comment about mistakes in other comments about the meaning of 'inherit', 'rising', 'happened' or 'net'. All I know is there is a shrinking minority of people who will always hate this president, and see every report of good news for this country as bad news. In a way, I feel bad for them, but I'm grateful they are becoming less and less influential. This nation needs to remain on the same track so we can eventually undo the damage done in the previous decade. The president's budget proposal helps get us there. I, for one, see that as good news.

6
2
badcopperMay. 18, 1310:44 AM

shrinking minority of people who will always hate this president ------- Not hate. Losing respect for is more appropriate. I would say the percentage is increasing....as called out be approval ratings throughout his tenure

2
6
firefight41May. 18, 1310:59 AM

Funny how when Clinton left office he had budget surplusses.************* You compare debt to deficits. Apples to oranges, Clinton gave Bush a 5.6 trillion dollar debt, Bush gave Obama an additional $5.0 trillion dollar debt in 8 years, and Obama added to the debt by $6 trillion dollars in 4 years.

3
6
firefight41May. 18, 1311:01 AM

This nation needs to remain on the same track so we can eventually undo the damage done in the previous decade. The president's budget proposal helps get us there. I, for one, see that as good news. *********** How does it get us to lowering the debt? It doesn't it cuts the deficit not the debt. Want to talk about debt, than talk about the DEBT which is 16+ trillion dollars.

3
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT