Bush Unlikely To Keep Promise Of Cutting Budget Deficit In Half

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
WASHINGTON - The budget deficit will rise to at least $337 billion this year and may well approach or exceed $400 billion because of tax cuts and new spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq, congressional budget analysts said Thursday.

The latest Congressional Budget Office data also suggest President Bush is unlikely to be able to keep his promise to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term.

Even assuming a phasing down of the war in Iraq and the costs of hurricane relief, implementing tax cuts sought by Bush and Congress would produce deficits exceeding $300 billion through the end of the decade, the nonpartisan CBO says.

The report and Bush's annual budget submission kick off a predictably partisan election-year debate over the budget, which will play out against the backdrop of rising deficits, record spending and renewed concern about lawmakers' penchant for homestate pet projects.

Bush promised in 2004 to close the deficit from a then-estimate of $521 billion to $260 billion by 2009, and he promised again Thursday to meet that goal when he sends an austere fiscal 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.

"We can cut our deficit in half by 2009 and make sure the American people still get their tax relief," Bush told reporters.

Bush critics say he routinely plays games with the budget by leaving out the long-term costs of the war in Iraq and redrawing the tax code so more and more middle-class taxpayers won't get hit by the alternative minimum tax. Congress typically rejects most of his proposals for benefit cuts and new fees.

Even though CBO must follow rules that mean its official estimate is flawed ? by reflecting current law even when future changes to the budget are virtually certain to be passed ? its data are respected for impartiality.

CBO's official baseline shows the deficit dropping to $241 billion by 2009 and $114 billion by 2011. But those estimates assume Bush's tax cuts expire and the alternative minimum tax is left alone. That tax, designed to stop the wealthy from avoiding all taxation, threatens more middle class taxpayers every year because of inflation.

Under a more realistic scenario, extending tax relief, drawing down troop levels in Iraq, and phasing out hurricane relief, CBO predicts a $332 billion deficit for 2009, the last fiscal year for which Bush is responsible.

For its part, the White House reiterated Thursday that it thinks the 2006 deficit would actually top $400 billion because of the costs of tax cuts, the war in Iraq and new hurricane relief.

"This administration is driving us over the cliff into deeper and deeper debt," said Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat.

According to the CBO report, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts would return the budget to a surplus of $38 billion by 2012. Keeping his tax cuts in place would put the government into a $289 billion deficit that year, but Bush rejected any talk of letting his tax cuts lapse at the end of the decade as currently scheduled.

"We don't need to be running up the taxes right now," Bush said Thursday. "You know, people say, 'Well, let's raise the taxes and balance the budget' ? that's not how it works; they're going to raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the government."

The government recorded a $319 billion deficit for 2005. The record deficit in dollar terms of $413 billion was registered in fiscal 2004.

Economists say the more significant measure is against the size of the economy. In those terms, CBO's 2006 deficit prediction would equal 2.6 percent of gross domestic product and would be significantly better than deficits witnessed in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Then, deficits of 4 percent to 6 percent of
GDP were common.

On the economy, CBO predicts continued robust growth of 3.6 percent this year and 3.4 percent next year, slowing to an average of 3.1 percent over 2009-2011.

With near-term deficit predictions going up, Republicans in Congress are feeling political heat from their core supporters, who say the party's record of fiscal discipline is slipping.

Republicans are particularly upset about the proliferation of lawmakers' pet projects under GOP control of Congress. For instance, total spending on such "earmarks" hit $17 billion in the latest round of congressional appropriations bills, House Appropriations Committee tally says.

When Bush took office in 2001, both White House and congressional forecasters projected cumulative surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade.

But a revenue bubble burst, a recession and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist assaults adversely affected the books. Several rounds of tax cuts, including Bush's signature $1.35 trillion 2001 tax cut, also contributed to the return to deficits in 2002 after four years of budget surpluses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who do we want to believe at this point? Bush is still hoping Americans are in "la la land" in regards to his tax cuts, which he wants to extend indefinitely. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the budget deficit will continue in a similar manner through the end of the decade, past the end of Bush's term, and past his promise of returning our government to fiscal responsibility.

Continuing to ignore debts on the promise of future gains that never materialize...a bit too reminiscent of Enron.

 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Hmm, well the CBO official I was listening to on CNBC yesterday stated closer to 360 billion with the added Katrina debt. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to reign in spending during war time; no less I believe the President's budget for this year may have some serious cuts in it. There is no doubt cuts have to be made.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Hmm, well the CBO official I was listening to on CNBC yesterday stated closer to 360 billion with the added Katrina debt. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to reign in spending during war time; no less I believe the President's budget for this year may have some serious cuts in it. There is no doubt cuts have to be made.

More cuts to taxes over the cuts in spending. If the economy slows down, as it did in the forth quarter, deficits will again outgrow the economy (which it has for 5 of the last 6 years anyway).
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Hmm, well the CBO official I was listening to on CNBC yesterday stated closer to 360 billion with the added Katrina debt. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to reign in spending during war time; no less I believe the President's budget for this year may have some serious cuts in it. There is no doubt cuts have to be made.

More cuts to taxes over the cuts in spending. If the economy slows down, as it did in the forth quarter, deficits will again outgrow the economy (which it has for 5 of the last 6 years anyway).

Overall the GDP growth for the 2005 was ok. The thing I can't seem to understand is why productivity is still high and there is overall double digit earnings for this last quarter even in the face of lackluster GDP numbers for the quarter. Something not adding up.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Overall the GDP growth for the 2005 was ok. The thing I can't seem to understand is why productivity is still high and there is overall double digit earnings for this last quarter even in the face of lackluster GDP numbers for the quarter. Something not adding up.

Per dullard...

Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Engineer
Not sure why the GDP fell with such strong consumer spending.
[*]Durable goods purchases down 17.5%.
[*]Imports up 9.1%. What we did buy wasn't American, so our GDP is not affected.
[*]Government purchases down 2.4%. This is a good thing. We should attempt to balance the budget. Of course though, with lower government spending, the GDP is hurt. It is a dual edged sword.
[*]Inflation is up. Real GDP is inflation adjusted, so as inflation goes up, real GDP goes down.

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
To keep his promise, only 2008 needs to be cut in half from 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is...not every single year inbetween.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
If ever there was a time .... it is here now

Vote for anybody but a Republican this Fall.

I like how Bush states "We don't need to be running up the taxes right now," Bush said Thursday. "You know, people say, 'Well, let's raise the taxes and balance the budget' ? that's not how it works; they're going to raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the government."

Who is they? The Republican majority in Congress I guess although Bush hasn't yet, in 5 years, seen a single expenditure worthy of a veto so we must include him in the "they're".

Expenditures are reigned in when the Executive is held by one party and the Congress or at least one part is held by the other party.

Now is the time, actually well past the time, to make that happen.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: ntdz
To keep his promise, only 2008 needs to be cut in half from 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is...not every single year inbetween.

And your estimate on how likely that is to happen?

I say the chances are around 0%, based purely on track record.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
The US is 5 trillion dollars in debt. Does this mean that we need the Democrats to fix it? I will end up voting Republican, because there is too much in the libs' platform that is murky. Oh, and until we can get us a good President, the deficit will grow. Wars don't help much.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: themusgrat
The US is 5 trillion dollars in debt. Does this mean that we need the Democrats to fix it? I will end up voting Republican, because there is too much in the libs' platform that is murky. Oh, and until we can get us a good President, the deficit will grow. Wars don't help much.


I say better the devil you may get than the devil you know. Bush and his cohorts in the Congress have had 5 years to walk the walk. No indication of that happening yet. Think there is a good chance it isn't going to happen?

Voting in the Demoncrats "may" cause a spending problem. We know that Bush and the Rebubs have and will continue to have a spending problem.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
The government is getting bigger and bigger. People who support the wiretappings are basically saying that they support a larger government. The government is there is spend within its means. Sure, deficits can occur. But those tax cuts don't work when you spend spend spend.

Also, the economy is not growing fast as we like it to.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: ntdz
To keep his promise, only 2008 needs to be cut in half from 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is...not every single year inbetween.

And your estimate on how likely that is to happen?

I say the chances are around 0%, based purely on track record.

I think it's possible, we'll have to see how the economy is doing in a couple of years.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Voting in the Demoncrats "may" cause a spending problem. We know that Bush and the Rebubs have and will continue to have a spending problem.

May? :laugh:

I'll be the first to cede the point that Republicans haven't exactly been faithful stewards on spending. But switching to the other shoe would hardly fix that.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: themusgrat
The US is 5 trillion dollars in debt. Does this mean that we need the Democrats to fix it? I will end up voting Republican, because there is too much in the libs' platform that is murky. Oh, and until we can get us a good President, the deficit will grow. Wars don't help much.
It's actually about $8.2 Trillion as of today.

As long as Bush insists on carrying Iraq expenses off budget, any promises he makes about the budget are less than meaningless. The last estimate I saw was $2 Trillion or more over the long term, just for Iraq-related expenses.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Voting in the Demoncrats "may" cause a spending problem. We know that Bush and the Rebubs have and will continue to have a spending problem.
May? :laugh:

I'll be the first to cede the point that Republicans haven't exactly been faithful stewards on spending. But switching to the other shoe would hardly fix that.
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Overall the GDP growth for the 2005 was ok. The thing I can't seem to understand is why productivity is still high and there is overall double digit earnings for this last quarter even in the face of lackluster GDP numbers for the quarter. Something not adding up.

Per dullard...

Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Engineer
Not sure why the GDP fell with such strong consumer spending.
[*]Durable goods purchases down 17.5%.
[*]Imports up 9.1%. What we did buy wasn't American, so our GDP is not affected.
[*]Government purchases down 2.4%. This is a good thing. We should attempt to balance the budget. Of course though, with lower government spending, the GDP is hurt. It is a dual edged sword.
[*]Inflation is up. Real GDP is inflation adjusted, so as inflation goes up, real GDP goes down.
Durable goods orders rebounded last month. It is looking like 2006 will have moderate growth.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: ntdz
To keep his promise, only 2008 needs to be cut in half from 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is...not every single year inbetween.

And your estimate on how likely that is to happen?

I say the chances are around 0%, based purely on track record.



Based on current tax receipts and sepdning growth, there is a possibility of balanced budget by 2008. Katrina appears to be a blip and probably worth the moeny spent to do the needed repairs(should have been done by state and local).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: themusgrat
The US is 5 trillion dollars in debt. Does this mean that we need the Democrats to fix it? I will end up voting Republican, because there is too much in the libs' platform that is murky. Oh, and until we can get us a good President, the deficit will grow. Wars don't help much.
It's actually about $8.2 Trillion as of today.

As long as Bush insists on carrying Iraq expenses off budget, any promises he makes about the budget are less than meaningless. The last estimate I saw was $2 Trillion or more over the long term, just for Iraq-related expenses.



They are on budget, they have just been in seperate spending bills.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.

Thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

You are one of the first to squeal like a stuffed pig when someone mentions Clinton and you bring it right up!

I'm not surprised. And as for your love of Clinton-era financials ... get a grip. Clinton's massive cuts in defense spending that we're paying dearly for now might have helped 'balance the budget' but your equation of that is riddled in fantasy.

 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: Pabster

I'll be the first to cede the point that Republicans haven't exactly been faithful stewards on spending. But switching to the other shoe would hardly fix that.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.

Thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

You are one of the first to squeal like a stuffed pig when someone mentions Clinton and you bring it right up!

I'm not surprised. And as for your love of Clinton-era financials ... get a grip. Clinton's massive cuts in defense spending that we're paying dearly for now might have helped 'balance the budget' but your equation of that is riddled in fantasy.

YOU are the one who brought up Democrats. You said if we had a switch party control, they wouldn't do well either. Bowfinger said Clinton lowered spending and balanced the budget. I say he balanced the budget by raising taxes and holding down spending.
George W. Bush has signed each and every spending bill he has received and financed his spending orgy with the nation's credit card. A divided government could serve as a check to spending.

 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.

Thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

You are one of the first to squeal like a stuffed pig when someone mentions Clinton and you bring it right up!

I'm not surprised. And as for your love of Clinton-era financials ... get a grip. Clinton's massive cuts in defense spending that we're paying dearly for now might have helped 'balance the budget' but your equation of that is riddled in fantasy.


Clinton Era:

1. Surplusses
2. No war except Kosovo
3. Good Economy
4. Terrorist Attack and a "whatever" response

Bush Era:

1. Massive deficits...$300+ Billion per year in the red
2. Two wars both of which are losing causes
3. Shaky Economy, $3 Gas for your car, Natural Gas skyrocketing can't even heat your home
4. Terrorist Attack and an over reaction plus the invasion into Iraq.
 

Velk

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
734
0
0
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
If ever there was a time .... it is here now

Vote for anybody but a Republican this Fall.

I like how Bush states "We don't need to be running up the taxes right now," Bush said Thursday. "You know, people say, 'Well, let's raise the taxes and balance the budget' ? that's not how it works; they're going to raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the government."

Who is they? The Republican majority in Congress I guess although Bush hasn't yet, in 5 years, seen a single expenditure worthy of a veto so we must include him in the "they're".

'They' in this case is people who say 'let's raise the taxes and balance the budget'.

That Bush is talking about himself in third person in a dastardly ploy to discredit himself probably constitutes a straw man, if a funny one 8)

There's no contradiction in suggesting that people who are currently spending money that they don't have will spend even more money if you give them some.

Would you really disagree with the position that whichever government raises taxes is then going to be able to resist the temptation to increase spending ?

My faith in human nature as it applies to politicians, of any affiliation, finds that to be all too likely.


 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Voting in the Demoncrats "may" cause a spending problem. We know that Bush and the Rebubs have and will continue to have a spending problem.
May? :laugh:

I'll be the first to cede the point that Republicans haven't exactly been faithful stewards on spending. But switching to the other shoe would hardly fix that.
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.

With the way the economy was when Clinton was in office my dog could have balanced the budget. And I don't have a dog.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It's actually about $8.2 Trillion as of today.

As long as Bush insists on carrying Iraq expenses off budget, any promises he makes about the budget are less than meaningless. The last estimate I saw was $2 Trillion or more over the long term, just for Iraq-related expenses.
They are on budget, they have just been in seperate spending bills.
BushCo excludes Iraq expenses from its reported budget deficit, thus understating the deficit substantially.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Pabster
I'll be the first to cede the point that Republicans haven't exactly been faithful stewards on spending. But switching to the other shoe would hardly fix that.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yet with Clinton at the helm, we had a nominally balanced budget and substantially lower spending. Oops, sorry for the FACTS. I assume you'll spin and duhvert for a bit, then run away.
Thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

You are one of the first to squeal like a stuffed pig when someone mentions Clinton and you bring it right up!

I'm not surprised. And as for your love of Clinton-era financials ... get a grip. Clinton's massive cuts in defense spending that we're paying dearly for now might have helped 'balance the budget' but your equation of that is riddled in fantasy.
YOU are the one who brought up Democrats. You said if we had a switch party control, they wouldn't do well either. Bowfinger said Clinton lowered spending and balanced the budget. I say he balanced the budget by raising taxes and holding down spending.
George W. Bush has signed each and every spending bill he has received and financed his spending orgy with the nation's credit card. A divided government could serve as a check to spending.
Don't confuse the forum troll with facts. It just makes him run away crying.