Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda

$350? I think it is a lot more than that. One day interest on the national debt will consume the entire budget and the government will collapse. Then it will be time to party like it's 2099.

Forgot some zeros for sure, 12.

I question the usefullness of the data stated in the OP. Isn't it normal for Income Tax revenue to have begun pouring in at this time? Isn't this before Budgets and Spending Bills have begun to be passed for the 2005(perhaps 2006) Fiscal Year? Might not be, but if either is a "Yes", extrapolating current Data through the rest of the Year will lead to inaccurate results.

From past performances it is quite clear that this administration has no fear of inaccurate results. In fact, they depend on inaccurate results. They often parade around inaccurate results even when they KNOW they are wrong. Webster's calls such practices lying but a believe the Bushisms are "fuzzy math" and " a lot of numbers."

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Wow, that's really progress! :disgust:

it really is

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Dissipate

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Wow, that's really progress! :disgust:

it really is

Yes, it is, but it's only significant when comparing those two numbers. Compared against any other historical data, the projected spending for 2005 is still far above what it should be.

I think that is why this hasn't been mentioned more, it's not that impressive. Yes, it's progress. But I'll wait on the party until we're back to a reasonable level instead of record breaking deficits. You want slanted reporting, wait for a headline "The US Budget Deficit is Shrinking Rapidly". Yes, it's true, and it's also misleading. Any trend other than comparing two years (a poor economic trend by any real standards) does not show that to be true. A real, unbiased, article on the subject would point out that the projected 2005 deficit is lower than 2004, and higher than at any other time. While I would like to see more economic news in general, people get confused by it, and at any rate I don't think it will have the positive effect on Bush some of you seem to think.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda

$350? I think it is a lot more than that. One day interest on the national debt will consume the entire budget and the government will collapse. Then it will be time to party like it's 2099.

Forgot some zeros for sure, 12.

I question the usefullness of the data stated in the OP. Isn't it normal for Income Tax revenue to have begun pouring in at this time? Isn't this before Budgets and Spending Bills have begun to be passed for the 2005(perhaps 2006) Fiscal Year? Might not be, but if either is a "Yes", extrapolating current Data through the rest of the Year will lead to inaccurate results.

From past performances it is quite clear that this administration has no fear of inaccurate results. In fact, they depend on inaccurate results. They often parade around inaccurate results even when they KNOW they are wrong. Webster's calls such practices lying but a believe the Bushisms are "fuzzy math" and " a lot of numbers."

Don't worry. It's all just been play money since 1963 anyways. Text

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Dissipate

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Wow, that's really progress! :disgust:

it really is

So it would be "progress" if we had a $1 trillion deficit and then got that down to $800 billion the next year? Pah-lese. Real progress would be balancing the budget so that Americans know how big the obligations are that the politicians have bound them to. Right now all that Bush is doing is hiding the real cost of the war for the next president to take the fallout when it comes time to pay the piper.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

You gotta be kidding me, I hope insurrgents don't watch US news.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

This line proves the intent behind this post is pointless. Deficit means we are spending money we DO NOT HAVE. It doesn't matter if the deficit is $100 billion. We as a nation should NOT be running our government on borrowed foreign money and consequentially placing our nation in debt for decades to come. For the fiscal year 2004 we spent $321,566,323,971.29 just in INTEREST ALONE on our national debt! That is $322 billion dollars that could have been spent on education, healthcare, or economic stimulus. Deficits only cause the amount to go higher! Thus causing our government to have less of our tax money to spend here at home improving our nation. Saying the world is getting better because the deficit went down 10% is like telling a person who is terminally ill they have 5 more minutes of life to live strapped to their death bed unable to move and barely enough strength to breath.

Like I said pointless, and I dare say nothing but cheerleading in respect to the reason the OP posted this in the first place.

 

[Red Dawn]

Does that include the money we are spending to occupy Iraq?

 

[Looney]

LOL some people need to read and actually UNDERSTAND the deficit:

This week?s Treasury report on the nation?s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year?s.

And who set last year's deficit? THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!! And it was RECORD HIGH at 412 billion dollars: The federal budget deficit reached a record $ 412 billion in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30, (Link)

In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

LOL and how many months has it been since October? 3 months! There's still 9 months left for the Bush administration to make a new record.

 

[Sysbuilder05]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking
Why won?t anyone say it?

Here?s one story you won?t find on tomorrow?s front pages: ?The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly.? The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.

The em.. "Liberal" media also doesn't tell it like it is when it comes to the fact that Clinton left Bushit with a balanced budget and $250 BILLION in the bank. Surplus projections for the next decade were in the TRILLIONS,we honestly could have wiped out the national debt in 10-12 years.

But then along came George W. Bush. Ta hell with the surplus,to hell with the national debt,Rush Limbaugh,O'Reilly and CEO's everywhere want a FAT tax cut. On top of that Bush wants every weapons system from pea shooters to bombers,and give me a few of those $500.00 screw drivers while your at it. OK,to be fair your average Walmart worker got a whopping $2.00 per week tax cut, but then fuel has gone up about .60-80 cents PER GALLON during the last four years. So much for a tax cut for the working class.

All that combined with what is now a PROVABLE fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (we're now almost to 150 BILLION of money actually spent on the Iraq invasion) has rolled up billions in debt that will take another decade or so to pay down. And thats only if Republicans stop blowing money right and left.

http://costofwar.com/

Borrow and spend,borrow and spend....

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Does that include the money we are spending to occupy Iraq?

That is just how much we pay on the interest. I am assuming that during 04 we borrowed money to pay for iraq expenditures so in a way yes....

Tho I am not sure who you are directing your comment to ....

 

[BarneyFife]

Psst. The White House says that the deficit will hit a new record high this year. http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._pr_wh/budget_deficits

 

[TuxDave]

Wow, that's good to know that the GOP would give me the thumbs up if I go from complete screwing something up to screwing it up a whole bunch.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Psst. The White House says that the deficit will hit a new record high this year. http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._pr_wh/budget_deficits

damn you... i was gonna post this.

PSSST $427B ... growing from 2004.


Thanks for playing!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Psst. The White House says that the deficit will hit a new record high this year. http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._pr_wh/budget_deficits

damn you... i was gonna post this.

PSSST $427B ... growing from 2004.


Thanks for playing!

Which came in about 100B lower than the projections. So far we are running a defecit at lower rate than this time last year.

 

[cockeyed]

The deficit will sore as interest rates rise because of the interest on the National debt. Interest on the debt is the third highest cost item in the budget. Last time I looked, interest rates are on the way up. Also, the true deficit would be much bigger if the SS money were not used to offset some of it. Sounds like more "Voodoo Economics" to me.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: cockeyed
The deficit will sore as interest rates rise because of the interest on the National debt. Interest on the debt is the third highest cost item in the budget. Last time I looked, interest rates are on the way up. Also, the true deficit would be much bigger if the SS money were not used to offset some of it. Sounds like more "Voodoo Economics" to me.

In Dubya's case, more like "Doodoo Economics"

 

[BBond]

Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking

Bull...

Year's deficit projected at $427 billion

Military spending in Iraq, Afghanistan will push shortfall to record figure; Bush to ask $80 billion for wars; Darkening deficit picture a challenge for president

 

[Jhhnn]

Psst... Pedophile Priest promises fewer victims, too...

Same old storeee, same old song and da-aa-aance....

 

[ReiAyanami]

Using fuzzy math technology, deficits actually are shrinking. You see negative numbers are less than positive numbers and...

 

[Riprorin]

Tax cuts lead to economic growth and increased tax revenue. It's pretty obvious - unless you are a liberal.

 

[PatboyX]

i guess when i start feeling it, ill start talking about it.
until then: economy sucks for everyone i know.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Tax cuts lead to economic growth and increased tax revenue. It's pretty obvious - unless you are a liberal.

Yep, Dems suck at keeping the deficits going down.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Tax cuts lead to economic growth and increased tax revenue. It's pretty obvious - unless you are a liberal.

Not true - tax cuts lead to increased tax revenue iff the current elasticity of production with respect to tax rates is high enough that increased production at lower tax rates yields more taxes.

(This means there is a 'tax-revenue maximizing tax rate; I believe this rate has been estimated by regressions before, and is something ridiculously high). But revenue maximization should NOT be a government policy; minimum taxes needed to provide those services which are actually provided should be the main goal of setting tax rates.

Very few governments work this way; and most that do are at the local (municipal) level. In general there are only two common philosophies: 'tax and spend' and 'cut taxes, consequences be damned'. Neither is responsible, nor should either be acceptable.

 

[Brackis]

Riprorin, please stop bumping your 2 month old propaganda threads. You got just dessert with a 2 week vacation, so don't think of it as an excuse to bring attention to your old and ignorant posts.
If you want to be an evangelical sheep, at least make new arguments and threads.