Bush proposes largest deficit ever for 2007

[dullard]

CNN link.

Bush proposed a record $439.3 billion defense budget for 2007 ... But the Pentagon budget did not include tens of billions of dollars in proposed new financing for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the White House will seek separately...projected a widening of the federal deficit to $423 billion this year, up more than $100 billion from fiscal 2005.

Historical Deficit numbers since 1999 (in billions, unadjusted), % of GDP
1999: 125.6, 1.4%
2000: 236.2, 2.4%
2001: 128.2, 1.3%
2002: -157.8, -1.5%
2003: -377.6, -3.5%
2004: -412.7, -3.6%
2005: -318.3, -2.6%
Proposed: -423, -3.3%*
2009 Bush goal: -208

* I assumed a real GDP growth of 1%-3%, nominal growth of 4-7%.

Edit: 1999 numbers included for Techs.

 

[ElFenix]

i like how the NYT's headline was 'medicare budget cut' when it is merely the growth in the medicare budget being cut. medicare is still getting bigger.

 

[theeedude]

I guess the larger it is now, the easier it is to cut in half
This junta is a disaster for the country, really doing less than nothing to prepare for the baby boomer retirement. They are just adding debt to an already difficult problem.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the NYT's headline was 'medicare budget cut' when it is merely the growth in the medicare budget being cut. medicare is still getting bigger.

If you consider the runaway inflation in healthcare costs that is happening, a cut in growth is a budget cut.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the NYT's headline was 'medicare budget cut' when it is merely the growth in the medicare budget being cut. medicare is still getting bigger.

That's how everything works. If it doesn't increase by some standard margin, then it is 'cut'.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i like how the NYT's headline was 'medicare budget cut' when it is merely the growth in the medicare budget being cut. medicare is still getting bigger.

Inflation + population = growth adjustment. If the budget is adjusted per capita and to inflation, then lack of growth = cuts.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you consider the runaway inflation in healthcare costs that is happening, a cut in growth is a budget cut.

Exactly. If healthcare goes up say 100%, and the budget goes up only 50%, then in effect the US population gets half of what it used to get. Of course, since population would also go up in that time period, so in effect, each person would get only 40% of what they used to.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you consider the runaway inflation in healthcare costs that is happening, a cut in growth is a budget cut.

Exactly. If healthcare goes up say 100%, and the budget goes up only 50%, then in effect the US population gets half of what it used to get. Of course, since population would also go up in that time period, so in effect, each person would get only 40% of what they used to.

if it's going up faster than normal inflation + population increase (which it probably is) then the population is getting more than it used to. not getting *new* services (which is most of the cost increases in medical care) isn't the same as getting less than what you used to.

the big increase, of course, is that prescription drug benefit.

but of course medicare isn't allowed to bargain for services like everyone else does. (though, it might not matter much, iirc part C companies weren't making much profit)

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you consider the runaway inflation in healthcare costs that is happening, a cut in growth is a budget cut.

Exactly. If healthcare goes up say 100%, and the budget goes up only 50%, then in effect the US population gets half of what it used to get. Of course, since population would also go up in that time period, so in effect, each person would get only 40% of what they used to.

if it's going up faster than normal inflation + population increase (which it probably is) then the population is getting more than it used to. not getting *new* services (which is most of the cost increases in medical care) isn't the same as getting less than what you used to.

the big increase, of course, is that prescription drug benefit.

but of course medicare isn't allowed to bargain for services like everyone else does. (though, it might not matter much, iirc part C companies weren't making much profit)

Well, cost of same services goes up too. Healthcare inflation is ahead of normal inflation. Wasn't it the Republicans who fought to prevent Medicare for bargaining for cheaper prescription drugs?

 

[tommywishbone]

How much was promised for the mission to Mars? Got to get to Mars!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if it's going up faster than normal inflation + population increase (which it probably is) then the population is getting more than it used to...the big increase, of course, is that prescription drug benefit.

Basically the result is that we are adding a prescription drug benefit, which is now proposed to be under-funded. Thus, the rest of the medicare benefits must be cut to pay for it. For example, doctors will get a 4% cut for the same services.

You are correct, that the total amount spent is increasing. But much of existing medicare must be cut for the under-funded prescription drug program.

 

[techs]

I noticed you didn't list the deficit number for 1999.
Which is 0.
Seems we ran a SURPLUS that year.
First time since Calvin Coolidge.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, cost of same services goes up too. Healthcare inflation is ahead of normal inflation. Wasn't it the Republicans who fought to prevent Medicare for bargaining for cheaper prescription drugs?

yes, it was the republicans.

i'm still pretty certain that cost of same services doesn't go up much more than normal inflation rates. i know that healthcare inflation is up, but i think a lot of that is new or value added services. i.e., setting a broken leg, adjusting for inflation, doesn't cost much more than it did 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs
I noticed you didn't list the deficit number for 1999.
Which is 0.
Seems we ran a SURPLUS that year.
First time since Calvin Coolidge.

he did list 2000 and 2001

interestingly enough, each time the US has run a surplus has been quickly followed by a recession, iirc.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: techs
I noticed you didn't list the deficit number for 1999.
Which is 0.
Seems we ran a SURPLUS that year.
First time since Calvin Coolidge.

Um, ok. Now 1999 is listed. 1998 was a surplus too, should I include that year? I did include the surplusses of 2000 and 2001. I needed a cutoff, and I figured this century would be the least arbitrary of the cutoffs.

Note: I just put in deficit as a percent of GDP numbers in the first post too.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
interestingly enough, each time XXXX has been quickly followed by a recession, iirc.

Since recessions are periodic and frequent, you could replace the surplus part with anything and be technically correct. Correlation is not causation.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs
I noticed you didn't list the deficit number for 1999.
Which is 0.
Seems we ran a SURPLUS that year.
First time since Calvin Coolidge.

he did list 2000 and 2001

interestingly enough, each time the US has run a surplus has been quickly followed by a recession, iirc.

I did a search for US deficit historical.
the third hit was interesting:
historical budget data
Sorry, this document is not available. This document is currently not available in this format, either because it has not been released or has been deleted.www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

IN fact I call into question the facts in this post.
The poster has no source for his deficit figures.
His link does NOT contain these figures.
Are they true?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: techs
www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

IN fact I call into question the facts in this post.
The poster has no source for his deficit figures.
His link does NOT contain these figures.
Are they true?

Always trust the person who uses paragraphs, instead of techs.

Here is my source. It is the updated CBO document that you almost found.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: techs
www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

IN fact I call into question the facts in this post.
The poster has no source for his deficit figures.
His link does NOT contain these figures.
Are they true?

Always trust the person who uses paragraphs, instead of techs.

Here is my source. It is the updated CBO document that you almost found.

YOU SIR ARE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR.
Or else you misread your own document.
If you look at the bottom of your document, which exactly matches the figures you posted you will notice that you failed to SEE THE LACK OF A MINUS SIGN FOR THE YEARS 1999, 2000 AND 2001.
Let me explain to you that means there was a SURPLUS those years. Which is why no minus sign appears. Note how there are minus signs up to 1997 and then no minus signs for the years of surplus 1998 thru 2002. Which is when the Bush deficits came into play.
I call on you to REPUDIATE the misinformation in this post!!!
hehe.. I can see how easy it was to misread. So don't take it personally.

 

[Pens1566]

Quick way to fix the deficit, more TAX CUTS!!!!!!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: techs
YOU SIR ARE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR.
Or else you misread your own document.
If you look at the bottom of your document, which exactly matches the figures you posted you will notice that you failed to SEE THE LACK OF A MINUS SIGN FOR THE YEARS 1999, 2000 AND 2001.
Let me explain to you that means there was a SURPLUS those years. Which is why no minus sign appears. Note how there are minus signs up to 1997 and then no minus signs for the years of surplus 1998 thru 2002. Which is when the Bush deficits came into play.
I call on you to REPUDIATE the misinformation in this post!!!
hehe.. I can see how easy it was to misread. So don't take it personally.

Is it possible for you to explain how I got it wrong? I do not understand your logic. My post clearly shows years 1999-2001 with postitive signs and years 2002-now with negative signs. These signs match those in the link. They always have matched the link.

I think you, sir, have misread my post.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually Bush's goal is $256B. He proposed cutting the deficit from its "estimated" peak of $512B in 2004. He won't meet his fake target, either.

Hopefully, Congress will note his DOD proposal is DOA. They should tell the friggin' truth! Do the DOD budget FIRST and include ALL of the money being flushed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Discretionary spending has increased 50% since Bush took office . . . that's some serious fiscal responsibility. Who in their right mind votes for these turds and has the gall to call themselves Republicans? Granted, the Democrats sux too but at least they are honest spendthrifts. The GOP wastes our money, cuts a few billion from social programs, and then declares victory against budget deficits?!

 

[Todd33]

I have a fever and the only prescription is more cow.. tax cuts!

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: techs
YOU SIR ARE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR.
Or else you misread your own document.
If you look at the bottom of your document, which exactly matches the figures you posted you will notice that you failed to SEE THE LACK OF A MINUS SIGN FOR THE YEARS 1999, 2000 AND 2001.
Let me explain to you that means there was a SURPLUS those years. Which is why no minus sign appears. Note how there are minus signs up to 1997 and then no minus signs for the years of surplus 1998 thru 2002. Which is when the Bush deficits came into play.
I call on you to REPUDIATE the misinformation in this post!!!
hehe.. I can see how easy it was to misread. So don't take it personally.

Is it possible for you to explain how I got it wrong? I do not understand your logic. My post clearly shows years 1999-2001 with postitive signs and years 2002-now with negative signs. These signs match those in the link. They always have matched the link.

I think you, sir, have misread my post.

YOU SIR, ARE 100 PERCENT CORRECT.
I was mistaken.
When I saw the part that said US deficits and then the year 1999 and the figure 125 billion it was apparent to me (mistakenly) that it was saying that there was a 125 billion dollar deficit in 1999. What I didn't see was the start of the minus signs in 2002 which indicated those years were the start of the deficits.
I think you can see why I made the mistake. It was somewhat misleading to call the colums a list of historical deficit numbers and not something to effect of surpluses and deficits by year, etc.
I am mistaken and apologize to you.
(at least it served as a bump)

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush's goal is $256B. He proposed cutting the deficit from its "estimated" peak of $512B in 2004. He won't meet his fake target, either.

The goal is shrouded in mystery (like much of the Bush presidency). I think his logic is that if it is a fuzzy target, then maybe we won't notice if it is missed.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually Bush's goal is $256B. He proposed cutting the deficit from its "estimated" peak of $512B in 2004. He won't meet his fake target, either.

The goal is shrouded in mystery (like much of the Bush presidency). I think his logic is that if it is a fuzzy target, then maybe we won't notice if it is missed.

I don't get it. If deficits don't matter why is Bush concerned about deficits?
Could it be that deficits DO matter?
Inquiring minds want to know.