• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hey wait I thought Bush and the economy sucked?

Well well well lookie what we have here...what say you?

Personally I dont honestly think Bush is as much of an idiot as people say. For two reasons mainly. First, off topic from this post, IF he actually fabricated evidence for the war, how the hell did he fool THE ENTIRE WORLD if he was such a bumbling idiot? Secondly, and on topic, how the hell did revenue surpass growth all of this year?

Lets try and keep on topic regarding spending as opposed to my first comment. I was simply making a statement.

Federal deficit sharply lower....WASHINGTON (AP) The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first eight months of this budget year as growth in revenues continues to outpace the growth in spending.

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago.

That improvement came even though the deficit in May increased to $67.7 billion, up 57.8 percent from May 2006. However, analysts attributed this big increase to the fact that the Internal Revenue Service was more efficient in processing tax returns this year, meaning more revenue was collected in April with fewer tax collections left to be counted in May.

For the year, revenue and spending are both at record levels. Revenue gains are up 8 percent while outlays are up at a slower pace of 2.5 percent, compared to the same period a year ago. Growth in spending has been slower this year in part because of the absence of last year's huge outlays for hurricane relief.

The increase in revenues has been supported by continued strength in corporate profits and low unemployment, which has helped to push individual income taxes higher.

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7 percent from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher.

In the budget President Bush sent Congress in February for 2008, he projected that the government can return to a surplus by 2012 even if his first-term tax cuts are made permanent.

Democratic critics, however, contend that Bush's spending blueprint was based on unrealistic assumptions and left out major spending items such as the full costs of the Iraq war. They also argue that the current improvement in the deficit will be only temporary as the 78 million baby boomers retire, pushing spending on Social Security and Medicare up in coming years.

 
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!
 
Uhh-huh...

Somehow, the national debt has increased at the rate of $1.33B/day since the end of the last fiscal year, putting us right on track for a total increase in indebtedness of ~$500B for fiscal 2007...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Not that the truth really matters to the Bush Economy fluffer squad...
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Uhh-huh...

Somehow, the national debt has increased at the rate of $1.33B/day since the end of the last fiscal year, putting us right on track for a total increase in indebtedness of ~$500B for fiscal 2007...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Not that the truth really matters to the Bush Economy fluffer squad...

How about a remedial course in the difference between debt and deficit? Might come in handy one day
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Yeah, lets not let "facts" and "reality" get in the way of your Hero's "work". The fact and reality of the matter is that his projection of GDP and tax revenues are way off base, it's essentially taking a flat projection from a 2006 number, despite GDP last quarter being 1/4 what it was in Q4 2006. But I'll let you, the obvious direct plug into the financial markets and the guru of US economic health, tell me how that works.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Uhh-huh...

Somehow, the national debt has increased at the rate of $1.33B/day since the end of the last fiscal year, putting us right on track for a total increase in indebtedness of ~$500B for fiscal 2007...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Not that the truth really matters to the Bush Economy fluffer squad...

How about a remedial course in the difference between debt and deficit? Might come in handy one day

The funny thing is that you'd definitely fail that course since I have been trying to school you the whole time and you can't even understand basic financial forecasting. I guess I won't be seeing you in an i-bank any time soon sparky.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Yeah, lets not let "facts" and "reality" get in the way of your Hero's "work". The fact and reality of the matter is that his projection of GDP and tax revenues are way off base, it's essentially taking a flat projection from a 2006 number, despite GDP last quarter being 1/4 what it was in Q4 2006. But I'll let you, the obvious direct plug into the financial markets and the guru of US economic health, tell me how that works.

Hey genious...we arent talking about projections, we're talking about whats already happened. Bye bye
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Uhh-huh...

Somehow, the national debt has increased at the rate of $1.33B/day since the end of the last fiscal year, putting us right on track for a total increase in indebtedness of ~$500B for fiscal 2007...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Not that the truth really matters to the Bush Economy fluffer squad...

How about a remedial course in the difference between debt and deficit? Might come in handy one day

The funny thing is that you'd definitely fail that course since I have been trying to school you the whole time and you can't even understand basic financial forecasting. I guess I won't be seeing you in an i-bank any time soon sparky.

Kinda off topic...but wtf are talking about? lol Take it to PM's if youre gonna get personal. Unless of course you want to tell me deficit = debt, then have at it.

Sparky.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Yeah, lets not let "facts" and "reality" get in the way of your Hero's "work". The fact and reality of the matter is that his projection of GDP and tax revenues are way off base, it's essentially taking a flat projection from a 2006 number, despite GDP last quarter being 1/4 what it was in Q4 2006. But I'll let you, the obvious direct plug into the financial markets and the guru of US economic health, tell me how that works.

Hey genious...we arent talking about projections, we're talking about whats already happened. Bye bye

Your article mentioned projections.

As far as current, I guess your missing all of the trillions in unfunded plans that any GAAP financial statement would show, Bush's GAAP statement has more than 80% more unfunded liabilities than Clinton's. Those don't make it into the "official" numbers.

Furthermore, many spending bills don't make it in there either, further reducing the real number.

But I guess you graduated from a top-flight accounting school where you knew all of that, right?

Ever think of trying not to swallow pithy sound-bites released by people who have no idea what they are talking about and not just eating spoon-fed Gerber? Nah, that's too easy!
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Yeah, lets not let "facts" and "reality" get in the way of your Hero's "work". The fact and reality of the matter is that his projection of GDP and tax revenues are way off base, it's essentially taking a flat projection from a 2006 number, despite GDP last quarter being 1/4 what it was in Q4 2006. But I'll let you, the obvious direct plug into the financial markets and the guru of US economic health, tell me how that works.

Hey genious...we arent talking about projections, we're talking about whats already happened. Bye bye

Your article mentioned projections.

As far as current, I guess your missing all of the trillions in unfunded plans that any GAAP financial statement would show, Bush's GAAP statement has more than 80% more unfunded liabilities than Clinton's. Those don't make it into the "official" numbers.

Furthermore, many spending bills don't make it in there either, further reducing the real number.

But I guess you graduated from a top-flight accounting school where you knew all of that, right?

Ever think of trying not to swallow pithy sound-bites released by people who have no idea what they are talking about and not just eating spoon-fed Gerber? Nah, that's too easy!

Sure, the artical mentions projections. But hey! It also mentions deficit spending down 35%!
Cherry picking FTW!
 
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.

We are on track for a $170 billion deficit, down from last years $248 billion, we are making progress.
We shall have to see how much the economic slow down effects this, the good thing that we will know this in a few months.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.
And the same fanbois were as wrong then as they are today. Par for the course.
I propose that we convene in a month from now and talk about the June figures.
I get the feeling that we will be coming very close to the $177 billion end of year figure, which is a significant improvement over last years $248 billion.
Any way you look at it that is a good news for ALL of us.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.

And the same fanbois were as wrong then as they are today. Par for the course.

Fasnboi? I would like you to answer a yes or no question. No tricks. No ambiguity. Just a straight yes or no answer. I am (probably falsely) assuming you know the difference between debt and deficit, and why deficit is more important of a figure (Well, except LK who seems to think the Fed's numbers are made up, or something):

If our deficit is lower by 35% in a 6 month period, is it better for our our country and our economy?

yes or no?

You call me a fanboi, I call you a hateboi. Im not a fan of Bush either, but JHC the fact you cant even ackowledge progress is very disturbing...well, disturbing in that you are able to cast a vote. Who the hell knows what you would vote for. If not for financial progress, then who knows.

By the way...YES OR NO?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.

And the same fanbois were as wrong then as they are today. Par for the course.

Fasnboi? I would like you to answer a yes or no question. No tricks. No ambiguity. Just a straight yes or no answer. I am (probably falsely) assuming you know the difference between debt and deficit, and why deficit is more important of a figure (Well, except LK who seems to think the Fed's numbers are made up, or something):

If our deficit is lower by 35% in a 6 month period, is it better for our our country and our economy?

yes or no?

You call me a fanboi, I call you a hateboi. Im not a fan of Bush either, but JHC the fact you cant even ackowledge progress is very disturbing...well, disturbing in that you are able to cast a vote. Who the hell knows what you would vote for. If not for financial progress, then who knows.

By the way...YES OR NO?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53366

 
Having a "lower than expected deficit" is essentially saying "I suck less than expected". It doesn't mean Bush is great, or that the economy is super, or that government spending is under control. ALL it means is that things are bad, but not as bad as expected...not exactly something to jump up and down for.

And just as some friendly advice to whoever wants it, if you don't want your threat to be filled with trolling and stupid partisan comments, don't start the threat with them.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.

And the same fanbois were as wrong then as they are today. Par for the course.

Fasnboi? I would like you to answer a yes or no question. No tricks. No ambiguity. Just a straight yes or no answer. I am (probably falsely) assuming you know the difference between debt and deficit, and why deficit is more important of a figure (Well, except LK who seems to think the Fed's numbers are made up, or something):

If our deficit is lower by 35% in a 6 month period, is it better for our our country and our economy?

yes or no?

You call me a fanboi, I call you a hateboi. Im not a fan of Bush either, but JHC the fact you cant even ackowledge progress is very disturbing...well, disturbing in that you are able to cast a vote. Who the hell knows what you would vote for. If not for financial progress, then who knows.

By the way...YES OR NO?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53366

LOL @ your source

Besides that, let me make my point since you cant seem to grasp it. Lets bring it down to the consumer level. Here's the numbers for 2004, the latest Census numbers:

Median household income, 2004: $44,334 (Latest from Census Buraeu)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Household debt as of 2004: $84,454
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...10-03-debt-cover_x.htm

median mortgage in 2004: $95,000
http://www.businessweek.com/in...921813.htm?chan=search

Total debt in 2004: $179,454
Percentage of debt to income: 404% yowsers.

Pretty simple math. Now. Lets say you accelerate your payments, and in one year reduce your debt minus mortgage to $65,000. Your monthly payments on your debt can now go UP, and balance your overall debt. True, most people dont consider mortgage as debt, but it is. And we pay 20, 30, or even 40 years on that debt. Sound familiar?

Now. Why is the US Government any different? In the example above, our "family"would get into REAL trouble should their income go below their monthly payments. That is called deficit spending-borrowing money to make your payments. Has nothing to do with your debt. Now, if your income goes ABOVE your debt payments, in otherwords you have money left over after you pay the bills, that is called budget surplus. This represents the road to actually making extra payments on debt, therefore eliminating it more quickly.

Now, our income as a country is catching up to our spending. Some due to increased raw revenue, some due to cuts in spending. Either way it?s the same net result. That is called a revenue increase. From 1998 through 2001 our income was actually MORE than our spending (thanks, Republican senate!). We are getting closer.

Now my question is, which you cant seem to answer, is why is this a bad thing?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We just had this thread a month ago here
and the anti folks made the same arguments.
And the same fanbois were as wrong then as they are today. Par for the course.
I propose that we convene in a month from now and talk about the June figures.
I get the feeling that we will be coming very close to the $177 billion end of year figure, which is a significant improvement over last years $248 billion.
Any way you look at it that is a good news for ALL of us.


Is the recently passed $120B "supplementary" spending bill being added in then?

Has ANY of the Iraq war money been calculated in any of the budget deficit numbers? IIRC, they (govt) do not include any supplemental spending which would literally add hundreds of millions to the bottom line.
 
Heh. The whole concept of "budget deficit" has been perverted into an easily manipulable figure.

How? Move the appropriations for the occupation of Iraq off-budget, and presto! the budget deficit suddenly looks $100B rosier... Play some other games with SS, interdepartmental debt and so forth... It's all a lesson in Enronesque accounting methods.

Actual debt increase tells the true story, rather than the deliberate deceptions employed in tabulating deficit figures...

But the people fluffing up this whole deception already know that...
 
First of all like many previous posters have mentioned, the budget deficit does not include extra little things like our adventure in Iraq.

Secondly, Bush took a budget surplus of unprecedented proportions and turned it into a fiscal disaster... and now you want to congratulate him for it being less of a disaster then previously predicted?

You know just as well as I do just how stupid that is. Shame on you for trying to pawn it off.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1


LOL @ your source

Besides that, let me make my point since you cant seem to grasp it. Lets bring it down to the consumer level. Here's the numbers for 2004, the latest Census numbers:

Median household income, 2004: $44,334 (Latest from Census Buraeu)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Household debt as of 2004: $84,454
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...10-03-debt-cover_x.htm

median mortgage in 2004: $95,000
http://www.businessweek.com/in...921813.htm?chan=search

Total debt in 2004: $179,454
Percentage of debt to income: 404% yowsers.

Pretty simple math. Now. Lets say you accelerate your payments, and in one year reduce your debt minus mortgage to $65,000. Your monthly payments on your debt can now go UP, and balance your overall debt. True, most people dont consider mortgage as debt, but it is. And we pay 20, 30, or even 40 years on that debt. Sound familiar?

Now. Why is the US Government any different? In the example above, our "family"would get into REAL trouble should their income go below their monthly payments. That is called deficit spending-borrowing money to make your payments. Has nothing to do with your debt. Now, if your income goes ABOVE your debt payments, in otherwords you have money left over after you pay the bills, that is called budget surplus. This represents the road to actually making extra payments on debt, therefore eliminating it more quickly.

Now, our income as a country is catching up to our spending. Some due to increased raw revenue, some due to cuts in spending. Either way it?s the same net result. That is called a revenue increase. From 1998 through 2001 our income was actually MORE than our spending (thanks, Republican senate!). We are getting closer.

Now my question is, which you cant seem to answer, is why is this a bad thing?


lol@your math.

Your 2004 numbers are laughable. You combine debt + mortgage to get some type of aggregate number, yet you fail to read your own link, which states that the mortgage # is actually included in the total debt. Consider that not all Americans are homeowners and that the mortgage number is diluted.

The US government *IS* different, as that money is not the government's to spend, it is ours.


http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=731

That link sums it up quite nicely. *ALL* data is found in the US Treasury GAAP-based statements.

Consider in 2002, total Federal Obligations were 32.7tr and in 2005 were 50.9tr. That is a 55.6% increase. I believe that in 2006 it was somewhere around 60tr, according to the Treasury.

How is our income as a country exceeding our spending? We are going more than 2.5tr in debt *EVERY YEAR* with all of the obligations the government has. Furthermore, all of the increases were only had due to equity cash-out which Americans binged upon in the last 6 years, driving GDP positive when in fact it should have been negative. One way or another, it's debt spending.

You think you're pretty smart and so do they. However, the reality of the situation is that they are bankrupting the country. I am sure that makes you happy.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You think you're pretty smart and so do they. However, the reality of the situation is that they are bankrupting the country. I am sure that makes you happy.

All the personal bickering aside, Legend is absolutely correct.

Sometimes it's a real burden being a part of the reality based community.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Um you're the one that's cherry picking the numbers dumbass. If we go by your reasoning, all presidents should rack up a deficit as high as possible the first year, then for subsequent years, they can just chill and do whatever they want, because the deficit will always be lower than the all time high. So the next president should really aim high!
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Hey look, I am loosing less money than I lost before! Additionally, I am hiding more money in different types of funding and I am using unrealistic assumptions to make it look like I will create a surplus! Wow, I took a huge lesson from my buddies at Enron, thanks Ken and Jeff, I couldn't have passed accounting at Yale if it weren't for you!

Did the guys in black helicopters outside your house tell you to say that? It's interesting when people cherry pick government provided numbers...if it supports their view they cry "SEE! Even the government knows it's effed up!" But news like this? See above.

:roll:

Yeah, lets not let "facts" and "reality" get in the way of your Hero's "work". The fact and reality of the matter is that his projection of GDP and tax revenues are way off base, it's essentially taking a flat projection from a 2006 number, despite GDP last quarter being 1/4 what it was in Q4 2006. But I'll let you, the obvious direct plug into the financial markets and the guru of US economic health, tell me how that works.

Hey genious...we arent talking about projections, we're talking about whats already happened. Bye bye

Wow, you really are as stupid as you seem.
 
Back
Top