Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Repubs = Record Deficit = Again

AAP

Plat Hero
Platinum
July 30, 2004

Record Deficit of $445 Billion Projected for This Fiscal Year
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

WASHINGTON, July 30 — The White House projected today that the budget deficit would reach $445 billion in this fiscal year, by far the largest shortfall ever but well below the amount forecast six months ago.

Joshua B. Bolten, President Bush's budget director, presented the new forecast as good news, saying "the improved budget outlook is the direct result of the strong economic growth the president's tax relief has fueled."

As a percentage of the national economy, Mr. Bolten said, the amount was far lower than the record.

But Democrats said the revised forecast for fiscal year 2004, still almost 20 percent higher than the record $375 billion deficit in the last fiscal year, showed just how much the government's fiscal health had deteriorated under Mr. Bush's stewardship.

"They're claiming improvement?" said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "That is utterly preposterous."

In fiscal 2001, the last time the budget was prepared by the Clinton administration, it showed a surplus of $127 billion. Soon after President Bush took office in January 2001, his staff projected a 2004 surplus of $262 billion. Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that meant that by the administration's own calculations, the budget picture had worsened by nearly $400 billion in just three years.

In early February, the White House predicted that the deficit in this fiscal year would be $521 billion. The lower number announced today in what is called the mid-session review resulted from larger tax receipts than had been expected. Mr. Bolten said that was the consequence of "the broad-based and sustained economic recovery."

The administration is predicting that the economy in this calendar year will grow by 4.7 percent, slightly more than the 4.5 percent growth that is the average projection of the leading private economic forecasters.

The government's announcement today that the economy had grown at an annual rate of only 3 percent in the second quarter of this year, after growth of 4.5 percent in the first quarter, could make the White House's expectation for the year hard to meet. To reach it, the economy would have to grow by more than 5.6 percent in the last six months of the year.

Mr. Bolten discounted the importance of the second quarter numbers and said the budget was still on track to meet Mr. Bush's goal of cutting the deficit to less than half of what was projected in February for this fiscal year by the end of his second term in office, while extending the tax cuts enacted in his first term.

The White House sees the deficit falling to $331 billion in the 2005 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, and dropping steadily year by year until it is $229 billion in fiscal year 2009, when the next presidential term ends. These deficits are somewhat lower than were forecast in February.

The calculations do not include any additional spending in Iraq and Afghanistan after early next year, when current appropriations will run out.

"We will need additional money," Mr. Bolten said, but he said it would not be enough to jeopardize the objective of reducing the deficit by half.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, also promises to cut the deficit in half in four years. But he says he would repeal the tax cuts for people with incomes above $200,000 a year and spend the additional revenue, mainly for an expensive plan to expand health insurance coverage.

Mr. Bolten acknowledged that "today's deficits remain unwelcome," but he said the situation was not serious. "The most relevant perspective on the deficit is in relation to the size of the nation's economy," he said, and the figure projected today is 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product, "well within historical range" and much lower than the record 6 percent reached in 1983.

Mr. Spratt challenged that, too. He said that if the surplus in the Social Security trust fund was discounted, the deficit would be over $600 billion in this fiscal year, 5.2 percent of the economy, "up there with some of the biggest deficits of all time."

Mr. Bolten attributed the worsened government balance sheet to "an extraordinary confluence of adversity: the stock market downturn that began in 2000, and the subsequent recession that the president inherited as he took office; the terrorist attacks on America, and subsequent spending for homeland security and the war on terror; and the crisis in confidence produced by corporate scandals years in the making."

He did not mention the effects of the tax cuts enacted in Mr. Bush's first three years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has calculated that about half of the budget turnaround was caused by the weaker economy, about a quarter by higher spending and about a quarter by lower revenues because of the tax reductions.

In September, the budget office, which uses a different method of calculation, will publish its own revised deficit forecast for the fiscal year. The director of the office, Douglas Hotlz-Eakin, has said that the new forecast would be lower than $450 billion, compared with a projection in January of $477 billion.

Although the deadline is often missed, the mid-session review is supposed to be completed by July 15 under the budget law.

Democrats accused the White House of stalling so the new numbers would not be ammunition for the Democratic attack during the party's convention this week. Mr. Bolten said the delay was necessary to make sure the numbers were accurate.
 
Yeah...WTF is up with the deficit? These republicans have their heads up their asses these days, sheesh, the deficit is mountanous, and they don't seem to care.
 
The wealthiest country on Earth will be living in debt for at least the next 2-3 generations.

Your kids and grandkids will pay for Bush's war and fiscal irresponsibility so that billionaires can have another tax break.
 
Europe is getting out of debt?- The US federal gov simply cant handle all that debt. Its not good for so many reasons.

I vote Republican all the time, but I dont like the fact that the GOP is not very fiscially responsible, that will catch up to you sooner or later.
 
I think this causes the dollar to go down which costs people across for instance south america money and they end up paying for it in part
 
MAX 300 said:
The wealthiest country on Earth will be living in debt for at least the next 2-3 generations.

Your kids and grandkids will pay for Bush's war and fiscal irresponsibility so that billionaires can have another tax break.
yep
 
why does their dollar estimates keep changing? could it be......that they don't know WTF they are doing????
 
rnch said:
why does their dollar estimates keep changing? could it be......that they don't know WTF they are doing????

That plus projecting high initally gives them the opportunity to claim things are getting better :)
 
welll if the govt didn't freaking pay Haliburton so much for the rebuild of Iraq, we would be in less deficit.. heck why not freeze all of haliburton's assets, bank accounts....along with Enron and use it to pay off a portion of the deficit
 
in 2001 the projected surplus for 2003 was $300+ billion.
in actuality, 2003...................................$455 billion deficit

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summary.html

"Bush Inherited Projected Ten-Year Surplus Of $5.6 Trillion: In January 2001, the CBO projected that the total surplus would reach $281 billion in 2001, and approach $889 billion in 2011. Surpluses were projected to accumulate to $5.6 trillion over 2002-2011." [CBO, Budget and Economic Outlook, 1/01]


but it's the dems that spend all the money right? where are you ef gop? what's your excuse for this one?
 
Q1: What impact do you guys suppose the Global War on Terrorism has had on the deficit?

Q2: Which is more harmful to citizens in a democracy, running a deficit (govt having to spend more than anticipated due to unforseen circumstances, e.g. War) or running a surplus (govt intentionally taking more money out of the hands of taxpayers than required to function, using TQs numbers, we were overcharged over $300 billion!)

Where's my change! Would you accept that at Walmart? Being overcharged on purpose, and just walk away and let the management use the change for "the good of the store?"

I'd rather keep more of what I earn and spend and invest for the good of my family, my chosen charities and the economy.
 
Its a question of responsibily Longhorn. As far as everyone in the US is concerned the current administration is wreckless with spending. Being younger there's too many burdens that will fall on me when I'm older.
 
A1: Too much of the deficit is due to the war on terrorism. How successful have we been in this 'war on terror'? Al Qaeda is still up an running, Bin Laden is still alive.
A2: Choose your poison, however surplusses = stability. If we run a on deficits (which arent necessarily bad) then then we pay for it in other areas of the economy, such as interest rates which are going up and increased inflation. Now which is the responsible option: Keep this increased spending nonsense with tax cuts and continue in this downward spiral of debt and increased deficits? Or attack the problem now before it gets out of control when another Democrat has to come into office and straighten things out? Of course the latter would require a stop to these tax cuts, but so what?
 
UA_Iron said:
A1: Too much of the deficit is due to the war on terrorism. How successful have we been in this 'war on terror'? Al Qaeda is still up an running, Bin Laden is still alive.


A2: Choose your poison, however surplusses = stability. If we run a on deficits (which arent necessarily bad) then then we pay for it in other areas of the economy, such as interest rates which are going up and increased inflation.

Thanks for answering. The war on terrrorism has yielded substantial results. Two safe havens for terrorism, former state-sponsors, no longer exist. In their place stand two pro-American, fledgling democracies. We may never find Bin Laden, but he will never operate with impunity again.

Your second answer is invalid since both inflation and interest rates remain at record low levels.

So basically we have all of this gnashing of teeth about a deficit when it is not a big deal whatsoever.
 
Im sorry, but most people who are REALLY educated in Economics and Finance know that the trade defecit, or national debt doesnt mean shit.
 
I'm moving out of US as soon as I get my bachelors degree. It's useless here anyway, overseas it can be put to a good use.

Fuck american women too. Fuck bush too.
 
AAP said:
July 30, 2004
Joshua B. Bolten, President Bush's budget director, presented the new forecast as good news, saying "the improved budget outlook is the direct result of the strong economic growth the president's tax relief has fueled."

That's funny because it was the boneheaded tax cut that caused most of the deficit in the first place.
 
Longhorn, you are a blowhard. 5.6 trillion projected surplus dollars got pissed down the drain in your country in 4 short years, 9/11 and the war on terror wouldn't make up a fraction of that.

Whatever happened to 'economic rationalism' and 'fiscal responsibility'? Oh wait, it got in the way of military spending and tax breaks.

Yeah, who needs money anyway, enjoy your next 50 years of debt.
 
MAX 300 said:
5.6 trillion projected surplus dollars got pissed down the drain in your country in 4 short years, 9/11 and the war on terror wouldn't make up a fraction of that.

What is the price tag for the Global War on Terrorism? How do you spend "projected surplus dollars?". Isn't that counting chickens before they hatch?

Do you acknowledge that this country was well into a recession by the time Bush took office?
 
Your country had 7 years of continous strong ecnomic growth, the strongest and longest period of growth in its history.

Then the supreme court installed Bush. Gore may have been boring as hell, but at least he wouldn't have fucked your budget over the way this administration did. Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower would have all done a much better job balancing the budget in a time of crisis, and probably would have done a much better job in organising the war on terror as well. It takes a Bush to really screw up the economy.
 
MAX 300 said:
Your country had 7 years of continous strong ecnomic growth, the strongest and longest period of growth in its history.

Then the supreme court installed Bush.

You cease to be objective when you start whining about the US Supreme Court. Bush defeated Gore in 2000 despite the desperate efforts of Gore's lawyers. If you haven't gotten past that fact yet I can see why you're so frustrated.

The US economy is currently growing at a pace unmatched in the last 20 years.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Q2: Which is more harmful to citizens in a democracy, running a deficit (govt having to spend more than anticipated due to unforseen circumstances, e.g. War) or running a surplus (govt intentionally taking more money out of the hands of taxpayers than required to function, using TQs numbers, we were overcharged over $300 billion!)

Where's my change!

1. those aren't my numbers they are congress's numbers and omb's numbers.
2. that surplus could have been used to pay down the outstanding debt. wishful thinking of course since congress would have spent it.
3. how is running a surplus harmful to citizens in a democracy?
4. tax cuts are are an illusionary benefit at best. i haven't felt any significant impact from these tax breaks. the relief i got might be the equivalent of 1/2% increased return on my mutual funds. and that doesn't put a dent in the fact that most of my mutual funds are returning 2-3% less than they were five years ago.
 
TQpew said:
1. those aren't my numbers they are congress's numbers and omb's numbers.
2. that surplus could have been used to pay down the outstanding debt. wishful thinking of course since congress would have spent it.
3. how is running a surplus harmful to citizens in a democracy?
4. tax cuts are are an illusionary benefit at best. i haven't felt any significant impact from these tax breaks.

2. Or it could have been used to help finance my kid's college education.
3. Overtaxation is not a problem to you? Are you a socialist?
4. Tell you what, in Bush's second term, mail your tax cut to me and I will make good use of it. Or better yet, donate it to charity.
 
Longhorn85 said:
3. Overtaxation is not a problem to you? Are you a socialist?
4. Tell you what, in Bush's second term, mail your tax cut to me and I will make good use of it. Or better yet, donate it to charity.


i didn't consider myself overtaxed. i made a comfortable living before and after his cuts. i see no difference.
and i am not left wing enough to be a socialist anymore than you are right wing enough to be a nazi. but i am closer to the middle than you are :)

w could have financed his little war in iraq with the income from those tax cuts and the deficit would be one less jab dems could take at him. but common sense has escaped him for about 3 1/2 years.
 
TQpew said:
w could have financed his little war in iraq with the income from those tax cuts and the deficit would be one less jab dems could take at him. but common sense has escaped him for about 3 1/2 years.

Not too shabby from a GOP point of view. The economy is doing great right now, do you deny this? As far as jabs taken by the democrats, they are glancing blows. The party of the sitting president picked up seats in the House and Senate for the first time in decades in 02. The Democrats tried desperately to hide their true colors during their convention and yet the only bounce received was for Bush.

The transition in Iraq is progressing well. Who would have predicted that less than 18 months after the invasion we'd be this far along with exponentially far fewer casualties than any expert predicted.

Bush's first term has yielded amazing results and follow-thru on election objectives: Successful War on Terror, Revitalized economy, unprecedented tax cuts, education reform, medicare reform, partial-birth abortion ban, implementation of faith based initiatives and transformation of the military.
 
Longhorn85 said:
The economy is doing great right now, do you deny this?
great? no. good? sure. especially since i never saw the much vaunted "recession" everyone was jabbering about.

Longhorn85 said:
The transition in Iraq is progressing well. Who would have predicted that less than 18 months after the invasion we'd be this far along with exponentially far fewer casualties than any expert predicted.
there have been a thousand more deaths in iraq than there ever should have been while afghanistan remains unstable and osama remains at large (until october at least). but i'm not going to argue this point since neither of us will change our minds.


Longhorn85 said:
Bush's first term has yielded amazing results and follow-thru on election objectives: Successful War on Terror, Revitalized economy, unprecedented tax cuts, education reform, medicare reform, partial-birth abortion ban, implementation of faith based initiatives and transformation of the military.

the war on terror has not been successful because terrorism is still rampant and now has new territory (iraq) in which to operate. more people died worldwide in terrorist attacks in 03 than in 02. that does not scream out success to me.
the economy didn't really go down the toilet anyway so can't credit bush with a robust economy. bush did a good thing with no child left behind and then promptly underfunded it.
no argument with a partial-birth ban (excluding danger to health situations) although that is an activist term and not a medical term.
 
casualbb said:
How, how, and how? I think you say these things without knowing what they really mean.

No, you are just underinformed:

Education reform - bipartisan bill NCLB voted for by a majority including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry which makes testing mandatory. Teachers and Educational establishment hate it because it puts the pressure on them to perform (ie, actually teach students how to read and do math) or lose funding.

Medicare reform - Medicare reform bill also approved by a majority of Congress and endorsed by the AARP, which has for years been the major lobby group representing senior citizens. Discounts prescription drugs which is what many voters were requesting in the 2000 election.

Tranformation of the military - Even as we fight the war on terror, the military has continued with the transformation process. The Army has been changed from hard-to-deploy, large division to mobile, agile, units of action. Two new Stryker Brigades have been deployed. The transformation process begun under Bill Cohen/Gen Hugh Shelton is way ahead of schedule.
 
Longhorn85 said:
2. Or it could have been used to help finance my kid's college education.
3.
I do have a problem with this statement
the gov't isn't responsible for providing for your children's secondary education.
if you can get some help,.fine,but this endeavor is your's and only your responsiblity.
fuckin' socialists
the greater "whole" provides for those that can't
when the founding fathers drew up our constitution,they had no idea and/or intention for the fruits of the labors of those productive citizens ,to provide
for those that "fucked-up"
 
4everhung said:
I do have a problem with this statement
the gov't isn't responsible for providing for your children's secondary education.
if you can get some help,.fine,but this endeavor is your's and only your responsiblity.
fuckin' socialists
the greater "whole" provides for those that can't
when the founding fathers drew up our constitution,they had no idea and/or intention for the fruits of the labors of those productive citizens ,to provide
for those that "fucked-up"

Say never mind Rosanne Rosanna-Dana. :)

We are saying the same thing. TP was arguing that a surplus (overtaxation) is good because it can be used by the govt to say, pay down the debt. I said I'd rather not be overtaxed and use my own EARNED money instead to pay for my kids college (for example).
 
Longhorn85 said:
No, you are just underinformed:


Medicare reform - Medicare reform bill also approved by a majority of Congress and endorsed by the AARP, which has for years been the major lobby group representing senior citizens. Discounts prescription drugs which is what many voters were requesting in the 2000 election.

Are you kidding???
 
rnch said:
why does their dollar estimates keep changing? could it be......that they don't know WTF they are doing????
It takes awhile for the govt to release thier stats,which are constantly revised. It's not like "hey its 06/30/04,what happened the last 3 months"
 
TQpew said:
1. those aren't my numbers they are congress's numbers and omb's numbers.
2. that surplus could have been used to pay down the outstanding debt. wishful thinking of course since congress would have spent it.
3. how is running a surplus harmful to citizens in a democracy?
4. tax cuts are are an illusionary benefit at best. i haven't felt any significant impact from these tax breaks. the relief i got might be the equivalent of 1/2% increased return on my mutual funds. and that doesn't put a dent in the fact that most of my mutual funds are returning 2-3% less than they were five years ago.
The top 2% pays 33% of all the personal income tax. The top 20% pays 80%.basically one out of 5 pays for the other 4. I do a payroll,the lower class typically ends up paying somehting in the neighborhood of 12$ a paycheck in federal taxes. Wow,what do you want 6$?
 
Top Bottom