Cbo forecast

[GURPS]

CBO FORECAST: 1.4% GDP, 8% UNEMPLOYMENT, 7 MILLION TO LOSE HEALTH INSURANCE


The Congressional Budget Office's just-released economic forecast for 2013 is dispiriting, to say the least. The GDP is expected to grow by only 1.4%, the unemployment rate will "stay near" 8%, the deficit will reach $845 billion, and ObamaCare will cost 7 million their health insurance.

The CBO says things will improve after that, but after three years of being told by the government and its media that "prosperity is just around the corner," you'll just have to pardon my cynicism. The media, however, will talk only about how much better the CBO says things will get, because that's what Obama would want them to do.

What these numbers really mean is that millions of Americans are about to face yet another year of chronic joblessness and economic hardship -- which just didn’t have to happen. Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape than the one Obama inherited. But Reagan's tax and regulatory policies got out of the way of the economy, and as a result, the engine of American ingenuity was unleashed and the economy exploded. Millions of jobs were created, millions were lifted out of poverty into the middle class, and poverty decreased.

Obama, however, decided he knew better than history and did the exact opposite of what Reagan did. New taxes, ObamaCare, untold numbers of regulations, and an overall Narrative that toxified success, individualism, and the pursuit of prosperity.

And just look at us now.

 

[FreedomFan]

No worries. Housing is up. It's all gonna be alright.

 

[itsbob]

Well as long as there isn't a Mormon in charge it's all good.

 

[ylexot]

I'm betting their analysis doesn't include the effects of sequestration...

 

[tommyjo]

CBO FORECAST: 1.4% GDP, 8% UNEMPLOYMENT, 7 MILLION TO LOSE HEALTH INSURANCE

What these numbers really mean is that millions of Americans are about to face yet another year of chronic joblessness and economic hardship -- which just didn’t have to happen. Reagan inherited an economy in much worse shape than the one Obama inherited. But Reagan's tax and regulatory policies got out of the way of the economy, and as a result, the engine of American ingenuity was unleashed and the economy exploded. Millions of jobs were created, millions were lifted out of poverty into the middle class, and poverty decreased.

Obama, however, decided he knew better than history and did the exact opposite of what Reagan did. New taxes, ObamaCare, untold numbers of regulations, and an overall Narrative that toxified success, individualism, and the pursuit of prosperity.

And just look at us now.

BULL! BULL! BULL!

This is FALSE!

First item that is wrong. Reagan did not inherit a recession. He was elected in November 1980...he was sworn in in January 1981.

The US was in recession from Jan-July 1980 and again from July 1981-Nov 1982. Look it up on NBER.

The recession of 80 and 81 were the result of the Federal Reserve's raising of interest rates in its intense desire to squash inflation. Mortgage rates soared to 20 -21%. The Fed refused to lower interest rates until it was sure inflation had been tamed.

The 2007-2009 recession (which actually did begin before and continue thru the 2008 election) was the result of an intense credit crunch/financial crisis.
The Federal Reserve cut rates and kept cutting rates...a 30 yr mortgage today is below 3.5%

These are COMPLETELY different beasts. Only a moron would write an article claiming that the 80 and 81 recessions are in any way similar to the 2007-2009 recession.

The economy exploded upwards after the 1980s double dips, not because of tax cuts, but because of the immense levels of pent up demand that had been created with interest rates at all time highs.

The economy imploded under the weight of the financial crisis and is limping out of it because everyone overspent and had too much debt. There was no fuel in the tank to ignite the purchasing fires.

BTW....govt spending under Reagan more than doubled (significantly more than the spending increase under Obama which is about 18%)....5 years into his term, the deficits under Reagan have increased substaintially more than they have under Obama.

Reagan wasn't about smaller govt...like any politician he oversaw a large scale increase. Reagan benefited from an economy that was a coiled spring...waited to unleash its energy.

Obama suffered from a spent economy...with no reserve.

Obama is a lousy leader...but Reagan was no saint....and the author who wrote this article is devoid of historical knowledge...but you lap it on up GRUPS...believe every negative thing you read about this country...because your brain might explode if an actual fact got in there...

 

[GURPS]

excuse me


the 'Misery Index' phrase was coined under Carter ...... certainly not because the Economy was BOOMING

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I'm not an economist so I looked up spending vs revenues using the Annenberg Public Policy Center's numbers. They are a progressive leaning organization.

Spending in relation to GDP is the highest since 1945. But the government's revenues are only 15.4% of GDP, the lowest since 1950. Why are revenues so low? Could it be that folks that could be working and paying taxes have no jobs? Why aren't businesses hiring full time employees? Why are so many full time employees being demoted to part time work? These are rhetorical questions but I think we all know the answers and just who is responsible for this mess.

 

[itsbob]

So what I got is 7 MILLION middle class families that currently have health insurance will lose their insurance.. while 14 MILLION non working entitlement class, and "non-documented" workers get theirs...


Well, hell, that sounds fair, what's everyone so #####y about?

 

[PsyOps]

Obama suffered from a spent economy...with no reserve.

And what does Obama suffer from now............... 4 years later?

The article doesn't say Reagan inherited a recession, it says he inherited an economy that was in worse shape than Obama; an economy that led to a recession. And I outlined this in another thread; which you predictably ignored. Of course you probably aren’t old enough to have experienced it. The only reason it seemed like it wasn’t worse is because Reagan managed to get us out of the Carter malaise much quicker.

Do you give any merit to the CBO report that, if we continue on this course and the effects of Obamacare, things are going to get vastly worse rather than better? All Obama has manged to do is exacerbate our economic problems; and the CBO is trying to warn us that, because of Obamacare and spending, it's going to get worse; and all you can do is cry foul about recessions. Do you have anything to say about the CBO report?

 

[Gilligan]

BULL! BULL! BULL!

This is FALSE!

...

You are disputing the CBO projections? On what basis?

 

[bcp]

So what I got is 7 MILLION middle class families that currently have health insurance will lose their insurance.. while 14 MILLION non working entitlement class, and "non-documented" workers get theirs...


Well, hell, that sounds fair, what's everyone so #####y about?

If you ask me, it sounds like a very good reason to want to disarm the public just about as fast as you can..

someone is going to get pissed

 

[itsbob]

BULL! BULL! BULL!

This is FALSE!

First item that is wrong. Reagan did not inherit a recession. He was elected in November 1980...he was sworn in in January 1981.

The US was in recession from Jan-July 1980 and again from July 1981-Nov 1982. Look it up on NBER.

The recession of 80 and 81 were the result of the Federal Reserve's raising of interest rates in its intense desire to squash inflation. Mortgage rates soared to 20 -21%. The Fed refused to lower interest rates until it was sure inflation had been tamed.

The 2007-2009 recession (which actually did begin before and continue thru the 2008 election) was the result of an intense credit crunch/financial crisis.
The Federal Reserve cut rates and kept cutting rates...a 30 yr mortgage today is below 3.5%

These are COMPLETELY different beasts. Only a moron would write an article claiming that the 80 and 81 recessions are in any way similar to the 2007-2009 recession.

The economy exploded upwards after the 1980s double dips, not because of tax cuts, but because of the immense levels of pent up demand that had been created with interest rates at all time highs.

The economy imploded under the weight of the financial crisis and is limping out of it because everyone overspent and had too much debt. There was no fuel in the tank to ignite the purchasing fires.

BTW....govt spending under Reagan more than doubled (significantly more than the spending increase under Obama which is about 18%)....5 years into his term, the deficits under Reagan have increased substaintially more than they have under Obama.

Reagan wasn't about smaller govt...like any politician he oversaw a large scale increase. Reagan benefited from an economy that was a coiled spring...waited to unleash its energy.

Obama suffered from a spent economy...with no reserve.

Obama is a lousy leader...but Reagan was no saint....and the author who wrote this article is devoid of historical knowledge...but you lap it on up GRUPS...believe every negative thing you read about this country...because your brain might explode if an actual fact got in there...

Only a Moron would go on a rant to refute an article about facts the CBO released and not refute any of the facts from the same report..

 

[itsbob]

If you ask me, it sounds like a very good reason to want to disarm the public just about as fast as you can..

someone is going to get pissed

Saw something in passing this morning about a road rage incident supposedly spawned by an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker.

I think if the above stats are right it's going to get much worse.. Imagine a working middle class blue collar worker that lost all of his medical benefits for him, his family and his child with serious medical issues.. How do you think he's going to feel coming home from work the day he finds out and sees an Obama Biden sticker on the back of somebody's car?

 

[Tilted]

People shouldn't take Breitbart's characterization of what the CBO (and JCT) projected at face value. I'll leave aside the piece's silliness regarding the comparison with President Reagan for now, as I intended to explore that comparison in a bit more detail in another thread (and still do when I get the chance). However, as it relates to the effects of the PPACA the following statement is very misleading - misleading to the point that in my father's home it would have been called a lie and punished as such. That is to say, the intent was to leave readers believing something that wasn't true. It seems that it was somewhat effective.

The Congressional Budget Office's just-released economic forecast for 2013 is dispiriting, to say the least. The GDP is expected to grow by only 1.4%, the unemployment rate will "stay near" 8%, the deficit will reach $845 billion, and ObamaCare will cost 7 million their health insurance.

First, the 7 million projection relates to 2022 not 2013 as the the statement suggests (and as all of the other projections in that list do). Second, it's not a projection of how many people will lose their health insurance because of the PPACA.

This is what the CBO is saying (i.e. projecting): Without the PPACA, the number of people that receive their health coverage through work would have grown from 154 million in 2013 to 167 million in 2022. However, with the PPACA that number will only grow to 160 million by 2022 as more people will be getting coverage in other ways. Twelve million more will be getting coverage trough Medicaid and CHIP and 26 million more will be getting coverage through the exchanges (i.e. through new non-group markets). Additionally, 4 million less will be getting coverage through traditional non-group markets and Medicare. The net effect will be 27 million more people having coverage (than would have it without the PPACA), leaving 29 million (instead of 56 million) still uninsured.

The CBO isn't even projecting that the number of people receiving coverage through their employers will go down, let alone that 7 million of them will lose coverage altogether. Rather, it projects that the growth in the number of people covered through their employers will slow as a result of the PPACA. More people will get coverage in other ways, primarily through non-group markets.

Like that changing dynamic or not. Doubt the accuracy of the CBO's projections or not. But let's not let ourselves be so easily mislead about what the CBO is actually projecting and then proceed to lie about it ourselves. It's like what happened last year when the CBO updated its projections for the budget impacts of the PPACA and some people tried to claim that the CBO was now projecting that the PPACA would cost something like a trillion dollars when it had originally claimed that the PPACA wouldn't cost anything. That was bunk and based on people not paying attention to what the CBO was actually projecting and how the various projections differed.


EDIT: Oh, I meant to comment briefly on the GDP projection but was in a hurry and thus forget. The CBO projections are based on existing law (i.e. to include the sequester cuts). Of course the GDP isn't going to be very strong if we go ahead with cuts in government spending. This is what we want, no? If you cut government spending, even if the private sector is otherwise doing well, you are going to see a short-term hit to GDP growth. Government spending is now a significant portion of our economy. You can't have it both ways - want the government to cut back on spending yet be upset about the resulting reduction in GDP growth. Do people really not realize that government spending cuts mean short-term reductions to economic activity and, e.g., GDP growth? To be honest, I think that GDP growth of 1.4% even with the scheduled cuts would be fairly impressive - more than I might expect. We either want fiscal austerity or we don't, but it comes with a price. We saw this with last quarter's (initial) GDP, it was actually negative even though the consumer spending, (fixed) business investment, and real estate aspects of it were fairly decent - the reductions in government spending represented a significant drag.