• 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.

US budget deficit finally decreases (yearly) for first time in 5 years

Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
US deficit is now projected to come in at $300 billion or a tad less this year on increased tax revenues from increased economic activity and money collected from "tax holidays". Of course, this includes using SS money, etc. but at least it's in the right direction.

Searching for link.

Previous links showing that it's 62 billion (or more) better than originally projected.

Not sure if war debt. is included in the figure ( I hope so as it's bad enough as it is, although impoving).
 
I thought the fiscal year goes until Oct 1? Regardless, I'm sure they will include a record amount of SS surplus as well, so technically the real budget deficit is probably $200B higher.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I thought the fiscal year goes until Oct 1? Regardless, I'm sure they will include a record amount of SS surplus as well, so technically the real budget deficit is probably $200B higher.
Click to expand...

The chart that I posted above sorta reflects that in the original projections. SS surplus has covered up deficits for decades, nothing new there.

You are correct about Oct. 1st. The Bush advisor gave a new projection based on revenues of lately and economic strength. Of course, he was touting making the tax cuts permanent to "keep" the economy flowing. The economy will flow regardless as "greed" will drive it with or without tax cuts.
 
This isn't surprising the projections used are ridiculous because they dont take into account increased economic activity as a result of tax cuts. Now if we could get this ridiculous administration to quit spending money like paris hilton in a versace store we'd be ok. But they wont...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

But Conjur, we have become such an entitlement society that reducing spending would be political suicide for congress.

I am all for reduced spending!
 
So we have tax & spend Democrats and don't tax, but increase spending Republicans? I love what they do with our money.
 
Lets throw out numbers (note these numbers have nothing to do with economic numbers, it is just a silly example):

-1, -2, -3, 0, +4, -2, +3, -1, +5, -3, -150, -140

Yea! Lets celebrate! -140 is not as bad as last year's -150! :roll: Who cares? -140 is still the second worst on that list and dramatically worse than all but one other number.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Lets throw out numbers (note these numbers have nothing to do with economic numbers, it is just a silly example):

-1, -2, -3, 0, +4, -2, +3, -1, +5, -3, -150, -140

Yea! Lets celebrate! -140 is not as bad as last year's -150! :roll: Who cares? -140 is still the second worst on that list and dramatically worse than all but one other number.
Click to expand...

actually it's the annual budget that affects the inflationary pressures more so than the overall debt. So lower deficit is good because it eases up on the inflation.
 
The budget numbers relating to the decifit are being low-balled because some funding for the war is not included in the budget and some social security revenue is being spent as part of the general fund. More enron type accounting...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

Yea, so we can see 10,000 more commercials showing Bush taking food out of poor Hispanic kids' mouths. Every time they try to cut something, the Liberal fringe cries foul; then they cry about too much spending. I'll take "Hypocrites" for $100, Alex.
 
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

Yea, so we can see 10,000 more commercials showing Bush taking food out of poor Hispanic kids' mouths. Every time they try to cut something, the Liberal fringe cries foul; then they cry about too much spending. I'll take "Hypocrites" for $100, Alex.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know building a bridge that costs a sh*tpile of money to accomodate around 50 people is just fiscally responsible.
 
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

Yea, so we can see 10,000 more commercials showing Bush taking food out of poor Hispanic kids' mouths. Every time they try to cut something, the Liberal fringe cries foul; then they cry about too much spending. I'll take "Hypocrites" for $100, Alex.
Click to expand...

The GOP controls DC. You don't think that they could reduce spending "if they wanted to"?
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

Yea, so we can see 10,000 more commercials showing Bush taking food out of poor Hispanic kids' mouths. Every time they try to cut something, the Liberal fringe cries foul; then they cry about too much spending. I'll take "Hypocrites" for $100, Alex.
Click to expand...

The GOP controls DC. You don't think that they could reduce spending "if they wanted to"?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Republicans voted down the Feingold admendment that would've restored "Pay As You Go" standards to Congress.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It sure isn't from reduced spending. That's what needs to be the focus.
Click to expand...

A-f'ing-men

For a fiscal conservative Dubbya sure has no reservations about spending money. Imagine where we'd be right now if domestic spending was close to the levels of five years ago. Makes ya want to scream.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Looks like the estimate now...
Click to expand...
Lets remove a lot of that text (without changing context) in that link and see what happens:

"a record $412 billion posted last year"..."In early 2004, Bush said his goal was to cut the deficit in half in five years"..."to about $260 billion by 2009".

Real number: $412. Make a fake projected number ($521), tell everyone you will cut that fake number in half (to $260), then celebrate when the real number was barely changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top