I just proved to you they use actual, current dollar figures in their forecasts in the post you just quoted! Do you even bother reading what I post or just ignore so you can continue spouting the same ignorant drivel? Here are the numbers again from the CBO forecast from the page you linked to in actual, not real, numbers: Year - GDP - % chng 2012 15,549 2013 16,034 3.1% 2014 16,646 3.8% 2015 17,632 5.9% 2016 18,792 6.6% 2017 19,959 6.2% 2018 20,943 4.9% 2019 21,890 4.5% 2020 22,854 4.4% 2021 23,842 4.3% 2022 24,858 4.3% 2023 25,910 4.2% Average: 4.8% So are you going to say the CBO is "trying to commit a fraud" too? They aren't making a forecast of GDP into the future, are they? If you compare GDP growth from one period to another, you take out inflation and use real numbers so that the comparison isn't effected by differences in inflation. I use real GDP numbers all the time when I'm making these kinds of comparisons.
It's a joke! It's all politics! I'll bet just about anything that Obama and Congress put out the word to make the sequestration hurt as much as possible. Instead of reducing military spending by a small fraction, let's furlough some air traffic controllers which will (*)(*)(*)(*) everyone off. And if they can reverse the air traffic controller spending this means they didn't need to do it in the first place! All of this is such BS and Americans love it...
I think it’s just the opposite. If you don’t separate the effects of inflation and economic growth, you are not going to get an accurate projection of economic growth. Otherwise you could have a projection showing zero economic growth for the next fifty years, with a 5% annual inflation rate, and yippee! You claim a five percent economic growth for the next fifty years! More than enough to pay for all all projected entitlement programs! Oddly, you, and only you, not the CBO, and not the Social Security and Medicare trustees come to that conclusion. And speaking of the CBO… This is at least the 2nd time you said that the posted CBO document uses actual GDP increases rather than real GDP increases, but the table you refer to, Table 1-1, shows dollar budget projections, not percentage of growth projections on GDP for the coming years. Economic projections in table 2-4 (and economic projections was what I was talking about) clearly show real GDP figures. Honestly, I don’t understand why you are sticking with such a wrong position. You’re like a guy getting patted down by cop, he turns up a joint, and you say, “Hey, that isn’t mine.”
You are either incredibly dumb or incredibly dishonest. First you caption something you wrote, and replied as if I responded to that, to declare "Nope. Wrong answer again." Percentage changes from one dollar amount to another give you the actual,not the real, GDP, so its useless for determining economic growth. That's why it has to be adjusted for inflation. Sheesh. - - - Updated - - - If you compare GDP growth from one period to another, you take out inflation and use real numbers so that the comparison isn't effected by differences in inflation. I use real GDP numbers all the time when I'm making these kinds of comparisons. By George, I think he's got it! Finally, it's taken you...how long? 6 months? To get this simple point. My work is done.
That is the whole point. If we have 0% real growth, but 5% inflation, then GDP will grow by 5%, and if you want to estimate what GDP will be in the future, using 0% would give you an inaccurate result because it would exclude the fact that GDP will grow because of inflation. That is why the CBO uses actual numbers in the projections as indicated from your link. For example. GDP now is $16,010.2 billion. If over the next year we have 0% real growth and 5% inflation, what will GDP be next year? The answer is not "the same", but $16,810.5. Right? If you want to estimate what GDP will be next year for budgeting purposes, and you think there will be 0% real growth and 5% inflation, then your estimate of GDP will be 5% greater than this year's number. Not no change. In scenario of 0% real growth and 5% inflation, we would not have plenty to pay off entitlements, because entitlement costs would grow faster because of the higher 5% inflation rate too. False. The CBO uses actual projections of GDP when it makes its budget projections, as I've proved to you. SS and Medicare aren't making current dollar projections because what they are concerned about is the cost of the programs as a percentage of GDP, and that is how they present their data. Exactly. When you are creating a forecast in future dollars, you use current dollars data. Which is why the CBO projects an average GDP growth of 4.8% for the next 10 years, just about the same figure I used. If the CBO used real dollar figures when projecting the future value of GDP, its GDP figures would be too low, and rendered incompatible for comparison to projected costs that are in current dollar values. It would be comparing apples to oranges, just like OMOF was trying to do in this thread. I did exactly the same thing the CBO does. To compare future projected costs in actual dollars with future GDP, you have to use actual dollars, not inflation adjusted ones. You have to compare apples to apples. They didn't present percentage growth figures in chart 1-1 because that chart is making dollar projections. But I showed you want the percentage changes were. If you are hung up on percentage changes, read below. They are all over the CBO report. You weren't talking about anything. You flat out said "that’s not what the CBO uses when they report GDP. They use inflation adjusted figures:" I've proven you are wrong, that the CBO does use actual dollars for its budget projections. Not only does the CBO use actual dollars in Table 1-1 and other tables in its budget projections, but also in table 2-1 where they list both real and nominal GDP projections in percentage amounts. And you can see that from 2014-2018 there GDP growth rates are above 5%. Just about the same one I used. See also table 2-3, Table B-1 and Table B-2. All of which have growth rate projections for actual (or "nominal") GDP in both actual dollar and percentage figures. I don't understand why you are sticking with such a wrong position, when even your own sources make GDP projections exactly the same way I did.
Wrong again. I am neither. Sure. I see you dodging my question because you know the answer proves my case. That is why I answered it for you. Showing the percentage change from one year to the next in actual dollars is not useless at all. It shows you how much GDP increased that year. So are you going to say the CBO is "trying to commit a fraud" too? No one has ever disputed this simple point. I've said it all along. And I use real GDP figures all the time when I'm comparing growth rates for different time periods. But in the examples where I was projecting what GDP will be in the future, I'm not comparing GDP growth from one period to another. Instead, I'm projecting what GDP will be in the future. And for that, you need to include inflation, because if you don't include inflation, would don't get an accurate result because inflation affects GDP growth as well.
I noticed you didn't give a link, but here's one: Spending Was About 3 Percent Lower in the First Half of the Fiscal Year By CBOs estimate, federal outlaystotaling nearly $1.8 trillionwere $46 billion lower in the first half of fiscal year 2013 than in the same period in 2012. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44061 Government spending is down in the first 6 month of this year. If it continues this, unfortunately, will the the 3rd year in the past 4 spending as decreased.
Makes no difference...government budgets keep going up. Look at Obama's ten-year budget projections...budgets keep going up and up and up. And these projections are filled with grandiose tax revenues which are very questionable in reality...
Not nearly as questionable as the latest Ryan budget proposal which assumes higher revenues from more tax cuts.
If you follow my posts and comments you will know I don't give a rip about politics and the two parties. All I care about is anyone within the system trying to do something that actually solves a root problem. Everything from politicians is BS...from every single one of them including the president! But I cut all of them some slack because most Americans love their representatives and will keep them in office forever...
Govt budgets have gone up every single year for the past 60 years or so, except for 2010 and 2012. And possible this year. So what. It is normal for budgets to go up with population growth, inflation, and a growing economy.
When we are looking at $1 trillion deficits, and Americans refuse to pay higher and higher taxes, then no matter population growth, the government budgets should reduce each year until they get a handle on deficit spending...
When we are looking at $1 trillion deficits, and Americans refuse to cut spending more and more, then no matter population growth, the government revenues should increase each year until they reduce the deficits.
Please provide the names of Congress members and presidents who believe ALL Americans should pay an additional $1 trillion in income taxes? And how can you possibly know if the US budget is appropriate or not? This is the root problem in this entire debate; no one can find consensus on defining the role of federal government and how much it should cost. Everyone is clueless if it should be $2.8 trillion, $3.8 trillion, or maybe $4.8 trillion! But we do know the current federal income tax revenue, and we know most Americans are refusing to pay higher taxes, therefore...if there are deficit budgets then they can only be solved with government spending reductions. We've got Obama and the FedReserve exclaiming that the sequester is harming the economy, a sequester that was only $85 billion, that hasn't even been implemented...and you think it's a cake-walk to extract $1 trillion in taxes from Americans?
Why should I do that? And how can you possibly know if the US budget is appropriate or not? This is the root problem in this entire debate; no one can find consensus on defining the role of federal government and how much it should cost. Everyone is clueless if it should be $2.8 trillion, $3.8 trillion, or maybe $4.8 trillion! But we do know the current federal income tax revenue, and we know most Americans are refusing to supoprt spending cuts to their favored programs, therefore...if there are deficit budgets then they can only be solved with government tax increases. We've got Obama and the FedReserve exclaiming that the sequester is harming the economy, a sequester that was only $85 billion, that hasn't even been implemented...and you think it's a cake-walk to cut $1 trillion in spending from the Government?
I guess you know something that Obama and Congress and the Fed does not know? You seem to know what the US budget 'should' be and know that Americans are willing to pay higher taxes. You think waving your magic-wand is a solution while ignoring the reality of Americans refusing to pay higher taxes...no matter which political party they belong. You think extracting $1 trillion from the private sector and giving it to government won't have any economic downsides? IMO this nation needs to stick to a 10/20-year plan of gradually increasing tax revenues and gradually reducing government per capita spending in order to arrive at a balanced budget approach. Unfortunately, paying down some debt in parallel is probably not in the cards so the debt will continue to rise...
Same thing back to you. You're supposition that Americans are going to accept a trillion dollar spending cut any more than they are going to accept a trillion dollar tax increase is silly. All you are doing in your transparent posts are making up baseless arguments as to why we should cut spending as opposed to raise taxes. Spending has already been cut. It is now proportionately lower than it was in some Reagan years. Revenues are still proportionately the lowest they've been in 60 years. We need to do the same thing that got us from record deficits to a surplus budget in the 90s. Decrease spending proportionate to GDP and increase tax revenues proportionate to GDP. You all (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the deficit and debt, but your unwillingness to compromise on taxes undermines the very thing you claim to be concerned about. If you really are concerned about the debt, and not just squawking for political purposes, then write your Tea Party rep and tell them to compromise with tax increases. Or better yet, vote them out.
If you read or could remember reading my post, it said 'gradually increasing taxes and gradually reducing government spending' over a 10/20 year period...this is hardly silly? What you don't understand is it makes no difference when Reagan was in office or even Lincoln...all that matters is the situation today. You have too much government spending and not enough tax revenues and most Americans unwilling to pay higher taxes.
