White House sees record budget gap in 2009

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...usa_economy_deficit_dc

White House sees record budget gap in 2009

The Bush administration on Monday projected the U.S. budget deficit will soar to a record of nearly half a trillion dollars in fiscal 2009 as a housing-led economic slowdown cuts into government revenues.

The economic and fiscal deterioration will complicate efforts to bring the budget to balance and pose challenges for whoever takes over the White House in January, either Republican Sen. John McCain or Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

"I believe whoever becomes the next president will have a very, very sobering first week in office," predicted Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat.

Reacting to the White House's new prediction that the budget deficit will hit $482 billion in the fiscal year that starts October 1, Conrad said that number easily could rise by an additional $80 billion when the full costs of the Iraq war are tallied next year.





Thanks, Bush. By the way, isn't it time for one of your "deficits don't matter" speeches?
This begs the question. Was the Bush economic plane insanely bad, or badly insane?
It is absolutely amazing despite the biggest tax cut (loan) in our history next year, we are going to be in a severe recession.
If you WANTED to destroy the U.S. economy you couldn't have gotten a better start than Bush has given us.

 

[Genx87]

Something in the congress preventing them from cutting it to shrink that deficit?

 

[lupi]

Isn't there already a current US debt thread?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...usa_economy_deficit_dc

White House sees record budget gap in 2009

The Bush administration on Monday projected the U.S. budget deficit will soar to a record of nearly half a trillion dollars in fiscal 2009 as a housing-led economic slowdown cuts into government revenues.

The economic and fiscal deterioration will complicate efforts to bring the budget to balance and pose challenges for whoever takes over the White House in January, either Republican Sen. John McCain or Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

"I believe whoever becomes the next president will have a very, very sobering first week in office," predicted Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat.

Reacting to the White House's new prediction that the budget deficit will hit $482 billion in the fiscal year that starts October 1, Conrad said that number easily could rise by an additional $80 billion when the full costs of the Iraq war are tallied next year.





Thanks, Bush. By the way, isn't it time for one of your "deficits don't matter" speeches?
This begs the question. Was the Bush economic plane insanely bad, or badly insane?
It is absolutely amazing despite the biggest tax cut (loan) in our history next year, we are going to be in a severe recession.
If you WANTED to destroy the U.S. economy you couldn't have gotten a better start than Bush has given us.

Sigh. I guess they don't teach civics anymore in school. Here's a quick lesson in the division of powers in our gov't.

Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

So Congress can't stop borrowing and spending, but it's Bush's fault?! Sure, he's shown no leadership because he's failed to use his veto to thin the budget, but he's hardly the sole party to blame for the budget gap. The Democrats are still happy to spend more than the gov't brings in, just like the last time they ran Congress.

 

[alchemize]

You could care less that we're more in debt. It's what we're spending the money on that has you pissed.

 

[Thump553]

Remember also that the cost of Iraq is off budget and not included. So this dismal figure is actually an understatement.

 

[ayabe]

There are tons of things not included in that number:

1. The war

2. Housing bill

3. Medicare fees

4. Unemployment costs

The true deficit is closer to $600+ billion, with a B. If we all came up with $2000 we could cover the difference.

I already have my check made out, who's with me?

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: ayabe
There are tons of things not included in that number:

1. The war

2. Housing bill

3. Medicare fees

4. Unemployment costs

The true deficit is closer to $600+ billion, with a B. If we all came up with $2000 we could cover the difference.

I already have my check made out, who's with me?

I'm a little short this month...could you spot me?

 

[PokerGuy]

Did I miss something, did someone update the constitution of the US such that the president now sets budgets and allocates spending? Last I checked, the US Congress is the part of government that determines how much is spent and on what. The executive branch (under the president) does not get to make budget decisions.

Stop blaming the white house, blame the congress. For the first six years under GWB, there was a slim repub control, the last two years has been under dem control. Seems to me they've both done a terrible job controlling spending.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Did I miss something, did someone update the constitution of the US such that the president now sets budgets and allocates spending? Last I checked, the US Congress is the part of government that determines how much is spent and on what. The executive branch (under the president) does not get to make budget decisions.

Stop blaming the white house, blame the congress. For the first six years under GWB, there was a slim repub control, the last two years has been under dem control. Seems to me they've both done a terrible job controlling spending.

The white house has final say (any spending or taxing bill can be vetoed and sent back). The white house is the leader of one party of the two parties in congress (and for much of Bush's term, he had control of both the house and senate). The party follows the leader. Thus, Bush had direct control over EVERYTHING in the budget.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional. And this is true for other presidents (democrat or republican, not just Bush). It isn't a political issue, it is fact.

The president sets the budget stage, and has congress more or less approve of it with minor changes, then the president signs it. It isn't started in congress.

 

[sunzt]

Looks like we need to get some more money from China.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dullard
The party follows the leader. Thus, Bush had direct control over EVERYTHING in the budget.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional. And this is true for other presidents (democrat or republican, not just Bush). It isn't a political issue, it is fact.

So, pray tell, when Clinton (a Democrat) proposed national healthcare early in his first term, why did it die in Congress (Democratic majority in both chambers at the time)?

Congressmembers of the president's party rebel against him all the time.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: RandomFool

Originally posted by: ayabe
There are tons of things not included in that number:

1. The war

2. Housing bill

3. Medicare fees

4. Unemployment costs

The true deficit is closer to $600+ billion, with a B. If we all came up with $2000 we could cover the difference.

I already have my check made out, who's with me?

I'm a little short this month...could you spot me?

Bailout the people who cant afford the bailout!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Remember also that the cost of Iraq is off budget and not included. So this dismal figure is actually an understatement.

Why do people keep repeating this falsehood????

Off budget does not mean that it is not included in the year in figures. It even says so in the OP.

$482 billion + $80 billion due to Iraq

 

[NaughtyGeek]

What if we put a hold on all non operational defense spending for 1 year? Keep the troops and ships supplied, but don't pay for any defense research or new equipment (outside of operational necessities.) While we all know this will never happen, it's fun to dream isn't it? This countries military expenditures are ridiculous and it really is time we reel them in. Lets start holding government contractors accountable for their proposed budgets and lets get someone to audit and correct crap like $600 toilet seats. The budget gap is nothing more than the government finding more and more ways to funnel our money into private corporations pockets yet we're always sold that it's the entitlement programs that are breaking us. What a friggen joke!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dullard
The white house has final say (any spending or taxing bill can be vetoed and sent back). The white house is the leader of one party of the two parties in congress (and for much of Bush's term, he had control of both the house and senate). The party follows the leader. Thus, Bush had direct control over EVERYTHING in the budget.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional. And this is true for other presidents (democrat or republican, not just Bush). It isn't a political issue, it is fact.

The president sets the budget stage, and has congress more or less approve of it with minor changes, then the president signs it. It isn't started in congress.

You are the one who is delusional.

In 1995 Clinton proposed a FY 1996 budget of $1.612 trillion link

The Republicans who just took over congress said no and both sides worked together on a budget deal and the final 1996 budget was $1.56 trillion. That is $50 billion less than what Clinton wanted.

BTW the Democrats aren't even trying to pass a budget this year. Their plan is to pass some continuing resolutions and wait for the new President before doing anything else.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
What if we put a hold on all non operational defense spending for 1 year? Keep the troops and ships supplied, but don't pay for any defense research or new equipment (outside of operational necessities.) While we all know this will never happen, it's fun to dream isn't it? This countries military expenditures are ridiculous and it really is time we reel them in. Lets start holding government contractors accountable for their proposed budgets and lets get someone to audit and correct crap like $600 toilet seats. The budget gap is nothing more than the government finding more and more ways to funnel our money into private corporations pockets yet we're always sold that it's the entitlement programs that are breaking us. What a friggen joke!

There is no such thing as a $600 toilet seat or a $500 hammer etc.

Those figures came about because they couldn't properly account for where a bunch of money went so they applied figures to the stuff they could account for.

It is the same concept as the mythical $2 trillion missing from pentagon spending over the years. The money is not actually missing they just can't account for it in ways everyone else would consider appropriate.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is the same concept as the mythical $2 trillion missing from pentagon spending over the years. The money is not actually missing they just can't account for it in ways everyone else would consider appropriate.

So it's missing.

If someone hands you $1000 and tells you to buy paper for the office, you can't come back with two reams of paper, no change, and then scribble over the receipt so that the total equals $1000 and then tell your boss that the remainder isn't missing, you just can't account for it.

Another gem PJ.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ no, the boss gives me a $1000 and goes away for 6 months and then comes back and asks what happened to the money and I can't account for anything because all the stuff I bought with it has been used so I show him the nice stapler I bought and we decided that it cost $1000.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is the same concept as the mythical $2 trillion missing from pentagon spending over the years. The money is not actually missing they just can't account for it in ways everyone else would consider appropriate.

So it's missing.

If someone hands you $1000 and tells you to buy paper for the office, you can't come back with two reams of paper, no change, and then scribble over the receipt so that the total equals $1000 and then tell your boss that the remainder isn't missing, you just can't account for it.

Another gem PJ.

Ummmm...no, it's not missing, you just can't tell the public where it went.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ no, the boss gives me a $1000 and goes away for 6 months and then comes back and asks what happened to the money and I can't account for anything because all the stuff I bought with it has been used so I show him the nice stapler I bought and we decided that it cost $1000.

And you're defending that as a valid excuse when it's clearly not. That is not how things work in the real world, not unless you enjoy jailtime for theft or embezzlement.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
What if we put a hold on all non operational defense spending for 1 year? Keep the troops and ships supplied, but don't pay for any defense research or new equipment (outside of operational necessities.) While we all know this will never happen, it's fun to dream isn't it? This countries military expenditures are ridiculous and it really is time we reel them in. Lets start holding government contractors accountable for their proposed budgets and lets get someone to audit and correct crap like $600 toilet seats. The budget gap is nothing more than the government finding more and more ways to funnel our money into private corporations pockets yet we're always sold that it's the entitlement programs that are breaking us. What a friggen joke!

There is no such thing as a $600 toilet seat or a $500 hammer etc.

Those figures came about because they couldn't properly account for where a bunch of money went so they applied figures to the stuff they could account for.

It is the same concept as the mythical $2 trillion missing from pentagon spending over the years. The money is not actually missing they just can't account for it in ways everyone else would consider appropriate.

tough shit do it anyways.

 

[ProfJohn]

Don't take my word for it. Do some reading on Pentagon accounting. I believe I read that there were 600 different account methods and different branches and groups within branches use dozens for different accounting programs, none of which are compatible. It makes for a complete mess when it comes to trying to account for stuff.

Imagine if every McDonalds used a different account method. Then someone at HQ tries to figure out how much the company spends on napkins each year only to find out that some stores call napkins 'point of sale supplies' which others consider them 'condiments' and yet others call them 'custodial' etc etc. In the end you know all the money is being spent, but it is nearly impossible to figure out where without going to every store and looking.

No one is stealing the money, although a lot of it is being wasted and miss used. And the way you explained it is simplified. What is really happening is that General Ayabe in DC is sending money to Colonel Smith who gives a little to Major Jones who gives a little to Captain Johnson who gives a little to Lieutenant James etc etc and all along the way no one does a good job of keeping track of where the money is going so when someone from the accounting office comes along they 'fill in the blanks' with some thing and call it a day.

There is no valid excuse for it, but like it or not that is how things are being done and have been done for a long time. I believe the Pentagon was working on this problem and trying to get one account method to all branches etc, but that takes time and a LOT of money.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
What if we put a hold on all non operational defense spending for 1 year? Keep the troops and ships supplied, but don't pay for any defense research or new equipment (outside of operational necessities.) While we all know this will never happen, it's fun to dream isn't it? This countries military expenditures are ridiculous and it really is time we reel them in. Lets start holding government contractors accountable for their proposed budgets and lets get someone to audit and correct crap like $600 toilet seats. The budget gap is nothing more than the government finding more and more ways to funnel our money into private corporations pockets yet we're always sold that it's the entitlement programs that are breaking us. What a friggen joke!

There is no such thing as a $600 toilet seat or a $500 hammer etc.

Those figures came about because they couldn't properly account for where a bunch of money went so they applied figures to the stuff they could account for.

It is the same concept as the mythical $2 trillion missing from pentagon spending over the years. The money is not actually missing they just can't account for it in ways everyone else would consider appropriate.

Seeing as my government is supposed to be beholden to me, that logic is unacceptable. If you can't tell me where it went then it should never have been spent. If the Government Accounting Office was half as thorough as the IRS, I bet we wouldn't be talking about budget shortfalls.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hey, I am not debating that the government sucks at spending money.

Which is why I am a fiscal conservative and want the government to do less and spend less. Democrats on the other hand want government to spend more and thus waste more...