Bush Unlikely To Keep Promise Of Cutting Budget Deficit In Half

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: thepd7

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.

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.

Balancing the budget isn't that hard. It just takes leadership and fiscal restraint. Bush lacks both. He would have hosed the budget even had he reigned in Clinton's era of relative prosperity.

 

[techs]

Taxes need to go up.
Thats all there is to it.
Even Tom Delay says we have cut the federal budget to the bone.
OK, he's a lying dog, but we really can only save 50 billion tops if we eliminate the pork.
Otherwise we are cutting into needed expenditures.
Fortunately we can increase taxes painlessly for 98 percent of Americans.
Meaning 98 percent of Americans won't have their taxes increased at all.
Just repeal the tax cuts for the top 2 percent.
That raises 175 billion a year. Cut the 50 billion in pork and
BINGO!! you have cut the deficit by more than 50 percent!!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

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.

The OP got the title wrong. It should read:

Bush Unlikely To Keep Promise

 

[arsbanned]

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".

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.

Yeah hell, we don't need no danged librul taxation, jis more bombs! Lots of 'em! :disgust:

 

[Jhhnn]

Leave it to Pabster to make the claim that 90's defense cuts are something we're paying for today- a very basic rightwing talking point deception. Terrorism is a response to overwhelmingly asymetrical military/ economic resources- our troop deployments and meddling only provoke terrorism rather than preventing it... Not even a global police state will prevent terrorism entirely. Even as Liberals are denounced for "throwing money" at problems, that's all the Admin is doing with the military- a feelgood solution to an exaggerated problem... the largest and most capable military in the world merely enraged the perpetrators of 9/11... didn't slow them down at all.

And of course, Bushco will have the perfect excuses for fiscal failure- War and intransigence from Dems, who won't allow sufficient cuts in entitlements to allow a balanced budget... Yep, Dems will probably object to pulling people off of respirators and dialysis mchines so that the Repub party in the penthouse can continue unabated...

And the whole bit about Bush only needing to half the deficit for 2008 is exquisite doublespeak, splitting hairs as only the rightwing spin machine can do... and their numbers are outright lies, anyway. The real deficits are here-

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

That's over $2T in four years, meaning that they'll nearly double total debt by 2009 at the current rate ...

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

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.

EDIT: 8.2 trillion

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.

Well it's a good thing that Bush isn't running again.

 

[RightIsWrong]

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 really are clueless, aren't you? For a change, Clinton's name was brought into this thread in a legitimate fashion. He was not throwing Clinton out there because he was trying to duhvert from the topic at hand or so that he could claim that Bush is allowed to spend like a drunken pilot (seems more accurate and appropriate than sailor) because "Clinton did it too!!" It's called a "compare and contrast".....look it up sometime.

As for your drivel about Clinton and defense spending, in the last five budgets that he proposed and signed had RAISED defense spending. In fact, his 1999 budget proposal called for a 10 year increase in defense spending.

But don't let reality get in the way of your right-wing truthiness. (Note: "truthiness," is defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.)

YEAR DoD SPENDING AUTHORITY $ INCREASE % INCREASE
FY1996 $254,417,000
FY1997 $257,974,000 $3,557,000 1.4%
FY1998 $258,527,000 $563,000 0.22%
FY1999 $262,564,000 $4,027,000 1.56%
FY2000 $272,400,000 $9,836,000 3.75%
FY2001 $291,000,000 $18,600,000 6.83%

As for cuts in military troop levels and equipment, well you are just going to have to talk to Pappa Bush on that one. If you really are so stupid as to argue that point, I will be more than happy to show you the numbers and also debunk all of the right wing talking points that you throw out.

 

[EatSpam]

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's cuts in military spending wouldn't be a problem if we weren't fighting an expensive, corporate, unneeded war.

Its your Lord's fault that he didn't bump up military spending prior to invading Iraq - the whole idea of "Going to war with the army you have" is BS, especially when dealing with a preemptive war.

 

[dexvx]

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.

The common misconception of Clinton defense cuts:

Look up the defense budget and you'll see that the rate of increase of which defense spending went down, but the budget itself never actually decreased.

 

[Engineer]

With information from threads like this, Bush and Congress better hope for a China like growth in our economy to make it happen.

 

[outriding]

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.

[

Cheney recognized the necessity of cutting the budget and downsizing the military establishment,

-Cheney in 1989-1993 while he was Secetary of the DoD

http://www.defenselink.mil

 

[ericlp]

Wake up...

With this MORON on the helm, there isn't gonna be any promis...

The only Promis from bush will be lies and MORE Lies...

President Bush put it this way:

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. ... I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

When I first read this, I thought he was "JUST" saying this. He Earned what? He didn't earn Jack...

Text

I can't believe any of you still trust this idiot. It boggles the mind. So how much are you getting paid for putting in the good word?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Don't confuse the forum troll with facts. It just makes him run away crying.

How many mirrors have you went through lately Bowy?

You come in with the old Clinton defense and have the nerve to call someone else a troll? :laugh: :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wake up...

With this MORON on the helm, there isn't gonna be any promis...

The only Promis from bush will be lies and MORE Lies...

President Bush put it this way:

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. ... I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

When I first read this, I thought he was "JUST" saying this. He Earned what? He didn't earn Jack...

Text

I can't believe any of you still trust this idiot. It boggles the mind. So how much are you getting paid for putting in the good word?

The problem is he never "earned" it, he just lied his way into having it given to him.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Don't confuse the forum troll with facts. It just makes him run away crying.

How many mirrors have you went through lately Bowy?

You come in with the old Clinton defense and have the nerve to call someone else a troll? :laugh: :laugh:

Nerve? What nerve does it take to do that? It's only an internet forum. It's not like you actually have to back anything you say up. Hell, you should know that as well as anybody.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: outriding

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.

Cheney recognized the necessity of cutting the budget and downsizing the military establishment,

-Cheney in 1989-1993 while he was Secetary of the DoD

http://www.defenselink.mil

Pabster, comment on this?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You really are clueless, aren't you? For a change, Clinton's name was brought into this thread in a legitimate fashion. He was not throwing Clinton out there because he was trying to duhvert from the topic at hand or so that he could claim that Bush is allowed to spend like a drunken pilot (seems more accurate and appropriate than sailor) because "Clinton did it too!!" It's called a "compare and contrast".....look it up sometime.

As for your drivel about Clinton and defense spending, in the last five budgets that he proposed and signed had RAISED defense spending. In fact, his 1999 budget proposal called for a 10 year increase in defense spending.

But don't let reality get in the way of your right-wing truthiness. (Note: "truthiness," is defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.)

YEAR DoD SPENDING AUTHORITY $ INCREASE % INCREASE
FY1996 $254,417,000
FY1997 $257,974,000 $3,557,000 1.4%
FY1998 $258,527,000 $563,000 0.22%
FY1999 $262,564,000 $4,027,000 1.56%
FY2000 $272,400,000 $9,836,000 3.75%
FY2001 $291,000,000 $18,600,000 6.83%

As for cuts in military troop levels and equipment, well you are just going to have to talk to Pappa Bush on that one. If you really are so stupid as to argue that point, I will be more than happy to show you the numbers and also debunk all of the right wing talking points that you throw out.

Great FACTS. Rather soundly refutes the talking point about Clinton slashing the military, especially when you couple it with Cheney's support for reductions.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Leave it to Pabster to make the claim that 90's defense cuts are something we're paying for today- a very basic rightwing talking point deception. Terrorism is a response to overwhelmingly asymetrical military/ economic resources- our troop deployments and meddling only provoke terrorism rather than preventing it... Not even a global police state will prevent terrorism entirely. Even as Liberals are denounced for "throwing money" at problems, that's all the Admin is doing with the military- a feelgood solution to an exaggerated problem... the largest and most capable military in the world merely enraged the perpetrators of 9/11... didn't slow them down at all.

And of course, Bushco will have the perfect excuses for fiscal failure- War and intransigence from Dems, who won't allow sufficient cuts in entitlements to allow a balanced budget... Yep, Dems will probably object to pulling people off of respirators and dialysis mchines so that the Repub party in the penthouse can continue unabated...

And the whole bit about Bush only needing to half the deficit for 2008 is exquisite doublespeak, splitting hairs as only the rightwing spin machine can do... and their numbers are outright lies, anyway. The real deficits are here-

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

That's over $2T in four years, meaning that they'll nearly double total debt by 2009 at the current rate ...

Well said. Massive armies are useless for fighting terrorists. It's like shooting flies with a shotgun. You need small groups of well-trained specialty units, preferably multi-national, working in unison around the globe. Bush's attack on Iraq wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives while fueling the hatred that causes terrorism.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: outriding

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.

Cheney recognized the necessity of cutting the budget and downsizing the military establishment,

-Cheney in 1989-1993 while he was Secetary of the DoD

http://www.defenselink.mil

Pabster, comment on this?

Don't hold your breath, the troll has cut and ran again.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: outriding
Pabster, comment on this?

Don't hold your breath, the troll has cut and ran again.

I believe he was either vacationed or banned, in the State of the Union thread.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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.

The defecit projects are made by the CBO, not the president. And yes the supplumental spending bills are included in those projections.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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.

The defecit projects are made by the CBO, not the president. And yes the supplumental spending bills are included in those projections.

No, they are not. I believe you've floated this disinformation before.

Here's the first article I found, from the Washington Post:

Budget Office Expects Deficit to Edge Up

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; Page A03

After a year of political battles over budget cuts and pork-barrel spending, the federal budget deficit will be slightly higher than a year ago, with red ink ending in 2012 only if President Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said yesterday.

The CBO forecast a $337 billion deficit for this fiscal year and lingering deficits through the end of the decade, offering a pessimistic backdrop as Bush prepares to release his 2007 budget request in the coming weeks. The deficit fell to $318 billion last year after three years of sharp increases, and Republicans had hoped the tide of red ink was finally receding. But spending on hurricane relief will push the deficit back up in 2006.

Additional spending on the war in Iraq and federal flood insurance claims, not counted in CBO's official projection, is likely to leave the deficit around $360 billion by Sept. 30, when the current fiscal year ends, said the acting CBO director, Donald B. Marron. And that deficit will come despite strong economic growth and rebounding tax receipts.

Assuming a phase-down of troops in Iraq and an extension of expiring tax cuts, the CBO projected that Bush will not meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. Indeed, under those assumptions, the deficit would dip no lower than $222 billion before swelling back to more than $300 billion by 2016. These projections do not include a fix, promised by both major parties, to the increasingly onerous alternative minimum tax. That would keep the average deficit well above $300 billion over the next 10 years, with the red ink topping off at $405 billion in 2016, CBO projections say.

"Not much has changed," said Marron, who recently joined the agency after serving as a senior economist in the Bush White House.

That conclusion came after a legislative year dominated by budget fights. A bill to cut nearly $50 billion from entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid brought out deep divisions in the Republican Party and has yet to win final passage. In November, a spending plan for federal health, education and labor programs was initially defeated in the House -- the first such setback in nearly a decade -- over objections to program cuts and the elimination of all home-district pork-barrel projects.

The CBO forecast will challenge Republicans to cut still deeper in an election year, especially because Bush once again urged making the tax cuts permanent. Such a fight would pit fiscal hawks against moderate Republicans reluctant to slice further into social programs and against GOP leaders who have used home-district spending to bolster the reelection chances of members in marginal districts.

"I'm fully prepared to use a veto if they overspend," Bush warned Congress yesterday. "We've still got a lot of work to do, don't get me wrong. And I'll present a . . . budget that will continue to eliminate programs that don't work or that are duplicative in nature, one that says we can cut our deficit in half by 2009 and make sure the American people still get their tax relief."

The forecast will also fortify Democratic charges that budget cuts will never suffice until Republicans accept that the deep tax cuts of Bush's first term must be reversed, at least partially.

"The current structure we have on taxes and spending is simply unsustainable," Marron said. "I don't think there's any question about that."

The $360 billion deficit forecast is in line with many private-sector projections, although it is lower than a recent White House forecast that put this year's deficit at more than $400 billion. Those projections have reinvigorated GOP calls for spending restraint.

Even before last year's spending-cut package receives final approval from the House, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said this week that Congress should go further this year.

"Today's report from CBO indicates that despite strong economic growth, the deficit remains high and mandatory spending continues to grow at a rapid rate," he said. "In a very short period of time, our nation will face a financial crisis because the federal government has made commitments to America's retirees that threaten to overwhelm our economy. It is critical that we continue to hold the line on spending to put our fiscal house back in order."

But Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said continuing deficits in the face of robust economic growth show that changes in spending and taxes are necessary to pull the nation out of its expanding debt burden. By Spratt's calculation, the current course would push the deficit to $528 billion by 2016. To reach that level, Spratt assumed Bush's tax cuts would be extended, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would slowly phase down, Bush's planned defense buildup would continue, last year's budget-cutting bill would pass in the coming weeks, and Congress would fix the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax set up to hit the wealthy but increasingly ensnaring the middle class.

In a polarized election year, few lawmakers from either party believe much work will be done to reach a bipartisan consensus on cutting spending and raising taxes to quickly address the budget problem. In the week between Christmas and New Year's Day, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow notified congressional leaders that the government would reach the statutory debt limit of $8.2 trillion by mid-February, the fourth time in five years the debt limit will have been reached.

"At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," Snow warned.

Spratt and Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) replied this month with a request to discuss a long-term plan to put the budget on track toward balance. Spratt said Snow has declined.

"You know, people say, well, let's raise the taxes and balance the budget -- that's not how it works," Bush said. "They're going to raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the government. And I understand that."

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's another article stating the same thing. This is an AP article hosted by CBS:

Deficit Expected To Reach $337B

(AP) The federal budget deficit will reach at least $337 billion for the current year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, and the deficit is likely to go higher because of tax cuts and new additional spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq.

The deficit estimated by the nonpartisan CBO was lower than predicted by the White House budget office, which two weeks ago said the 2006 deficit would top $400 billion because of emergency aid for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

CBO's estimate was to be officially released at 10 a.m. But the overall figures were provided to The Associated Press by a congressional aide, who acted on condition of anonymity because the numbers had not been officially released by the budget office.

Deficits for 2006-10 will total $1.3 trillion, CBO predicts, but such "baseline" figures may prove inaccurate because of the rules the scorekeeping agency has to follow when producing its estimates. For instance, the agency does not account for upcoming Bush administration requests for the war in Iraq or additional hurricane relief, which promise to add tens of billions to the 2006 deficit.

Over a longer term, from 2006-15, CBO predicts a $1.2 trillion deficit, but that presumes President Bush's signature 2001 and 2003 tax cut bills are allowed to expire at the end of this decade.

The government recorded a $319 billion deficit for 2005. The record deficit in dollar terms of $412 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.

A deficit of $400 billion would represent about 3 percent of GDP.

The White House will submit its 2007 budget on Feb. 6. With near-term deficit predictions going up, Republicans in Congress are feeling political heat from their core political supporters, who say the party's record on 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 fiscal 2006 round of congressional appropriations bills, according to a House Appropriations Committee tally.

Indeed, the deficit picture remains far worse than when Bush took office in 2001, when both White House and congressional forecasters projected cumulative surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade. Then, the White House forecast a surplus for this year of $269 billion.

Those faulty estimates assumed the revenue boom fueled by the surging stock market and Internet-fueled worker productivity gains would continue. But that bubble burst, and 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.

Now, the White House is citing the government's response to Hurricane Katrina as the principal reason for the worsening deficit picture. Some $62.5 billion in emergency appropriations and another $13.9 billion in tax relief are the main elements of hurricane aid already totaling $99 billion over five years.

In early 2004, Bush said his goal was to cut the deficit in half in five years. Then, the White House forecast the deficit to be $521 billion for the 2004 budget year, setting the goal of $260 billion by 2009. [/b]

 

[Bowfinger]

Here is another, older article, just to make it clear BushCo's been playing this dishonest game from the beginning:

The WMD Sequel: Iraq, Afghanistan and Deficit Reduction

by P.J. Crowley and Sonal Shah
March 30, 2004

President Bush talks a lot about fiscal discipline. He says he can cut the deficit in half within five years. But it's only when you look at what's not in the budget ? especially resources for reconstruction and our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan ? the sheer audacity of his claim really becomes clear.

Even if you believe that the administration is serious, virtually all of the money saved by cutting so-called discretionary programs ? important domestic priorities such as health care, job retraining and education ? will actually be consumed by supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next five years, monies that are not in current budget projections.

The president's budget for the current fiscal year projects a deficit of $521 billion, or roughly 4.5 percent of GDP, according to the Office of Management and Budget. A Congressional Budget Office deficit calculation is slightly lower at $478 billion. By 2009, the administration assumes that economic growth and a reduced growth in government spending will drop the deficit to $237 billion in current dollars, or about 1.8 percent of GDP. That represents as much as $284 billion in promised deficit reduction.

Even before we wade into the strange world of supplemental requests, there are good reasons to doubt the administration's budget reduction math: Mr. Bush has yet to submit a balanced budget or veto a spending bill; the president's plan to make his tax cuts permanent is not yet reflected in any budget; and the sudden recalculation of the cost of the new Medicare prescription bill ? which went from $400 billion to $530 billion from its announcement until the budget appeared.

What will be required to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan? We estimate no less than $219 billion ? the minimum the administration will request over the next five years to sustain military and reconstruction efforts in those two nations.

Roughly $180 billion of the $219 billion ? based on current spending of $4.7 billion per month - are funds needed just to keep adequate military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In its FY 2005 supplemental request alone ? which the White House (surprise) is not planning on making until after November 2 ? the administration will be asking for a minimum defense supplemental of $48 billion for military operations. And U.S. officials are already projecting that substantial military forces will remain at least into 2007.

Reconstruction assistance makes up the remaining $39 billion. The World Bank and Coalitional Provisional Authority say that Iraq alone will require $55 billion over the next four years. If the October 2003 donors' conference in Madrid is any indication ? when most of the international community's pledges were made in the form of loans ? the
United States will bear most of the burden in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

It is tempting to believe that the international community will increase its assistance, particularly if the United Nations is given a prominent role. The president has spoken of a "vital" but undefined role for the United Nations, though the administration's encouragement of the recent U.N. election mission is born out of desperation, not admiration.

We do not expect an international rush into Iraq after June 30, particularly if the insurgency intensifies. The administration has yet to put forward a plan that encourages broader international support, while the threat of civil war among the country's Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations is all too real.

It is also tempting to hope that Iraq will be able to contribute heavily to its own reconstruction. But for the time being, Iraqi oil revenue must be plowed back into expanded production, crucial to Iraq's long-term fiscal stability, leaving the United States responsible for most of Iraq's tattered infrastructure and on-going military and security force training.

Our $219 billion "best case" scenario assumes, in fact, that things will go pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next five years ? hardly a given.

We assume that the administration will continue its stated commitment to build democratic regimes and ? realizing that success costs money ? not try nation-building on the cheap. We assume, too, that international support will grow; that Iraq's transformation will in large part succeed; and that United States and international forces can be reduced as the Iraqis assume greater responsibility for their own security.

With apologies to Churchill, the Bush deficit reduction plan is an exaggeration wrapped in a gimmick, but there is no mystery. No one should think that presumed cuts in important domestic discretionary programs will actually cut the deficit. And our military and reconstruction commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan ? obligations that any President should keep ? may be off the Bush accounting books. But unlike the nuclear bombs Iraq never had, this economic weapon of mass destruction actually exists ? hidden away in a budgetary spider hole.

 

[wirelessenabled]

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.

So show me where the current Administration doesn't have a bigger spending problem than all others combined!

Going for possibly another new record deficit this year $400 billion plus.