Bush Touts Lower Budget Deficit Figures

[MegalosSkylaki]

HaHoo !

Wait til 2011 rolls around.

What's important about 2011 ?

That's when the Social Security surplus --which has been used by politicians to spend to cover the real deficit-- starts to turn into a Social Security deficit.

What's the plan ?

It starts to cash those phoney markers and IOUs the Treasury has been issuing to Social Security Administration (SSA) for "borrowing" its money have to start being paid.

Also, there is no more "borrowing" from SSA.

What then?

A) More General taxes?
B) More Payroll Taxes?
C) Less Social Security Benifits?

Neither Party has ever told us the truth about what was really being done to pay for its binges.

Now we have a Major war, a devistated Gulf Coast, a Space Program etc. to pay for.

That plus Social Security deficits --starting 5 years from now.

Neither Party has anything to boast about.

MegalosSkylaki

[butch81385]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnycombat

It is really sad when spending $296 billion more than you make can be spun as good news. If the US was a company and we were shareholders we would be very mad. O wait I am mad. When you start paying back some of the $8 trillion we owe then you have something to tout.

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

It is really sad when you don't realize that the good news isnt that Bush spent $296 billion, the good news is that we were at a deficit of $319 billion but have gained back $23 billion. I dont know about you, but it is usually good news to hear that I (or my country) just cut $23 billion dollars of the deficit.

[johnnycombat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by butch81385

It is really sad when you don't realize that the good news isnt that Bush spent $296 billion, the good news is that we were at a deficit of $319 billion but have gained back $23 billion. I dont know about you, but it is usually good news to hear that I (or my country) just cut $23 billion dollars of the deficit.

Your country added $296 billion to its debt. While adding $296 billion is better than $319 billion both are inexcusable. As long as we keep adding to the debt and not subtracting it will never go away and an appreciable part of your taxes (regardless of how high or low they are) will go to do nothing more than pay interest on debt.

If we put a substantial amount of effort in to paying down our debt we could have very large taxes cuts in the future without all of the worries of high debt. Of course this will never happen as long as people are wiling to support politicians who value political expedience over fiscal responsibility.

[MTAtech]

I think some here don't understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt. The deficit is the amount of money the government spends more than it has. Thus, the government spent in 2005 $319 billion more than it received in taxes. This year, the government improved this by only spending $297 billion more than it has. This deficit includes the money collected by Social Security that is currently running about a $250-300 billion surplus. Rightly, those monies artificially make it seem as the deficit is lower than it should be because Social Security also has liabilities in the future. If we factor that out (e.g. Gore's lockbox) the deficit is more like ~$600 billion.

The pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009 is only a pledge to cut the rate that we spend more than we have in half. It's like me telling my bank that I'm going to get my finances straightened out by only cutting the amount I overspend by half in five years.

The national debt is the accumulated deficits. When GWB came into office the national debt was about $5.7 Trillion. As of yesterday it was $8,408,232,930,865.92. When he leaves office it will be around $10.5 trillion - or half the debt accumulated since 1776 will be borrowed during his watch. This is the whole picture. It really gets interesting when the baby boomers start collecting Social Security and the SS Admin starts cashing in their bonds. It also gets interesting should the Chinese and Japanese stop buying U.S. bonds.

[TOAD6147]

Quote:

...the good news is that we were at a deficit of $319 billion but have gained back $23 billion.

How do you know this? Can you prove it by referencing an objective source and without the statement from the Whitehorse? What's been clearly pointed out but apparently flown over the heads of some is that the only reason there was a(virtual) "savings" is because months ago the Whitehorse projected an inflated budget deficit of $319 B so that when the real deficit of $293 B posted, they were able to say that they reduced the deficit by
23 B. Do you not see the obvious manipulation of the livestock here?

[Chuckiechan]

The role of tax cuts leading to increased economic activity is a bridge that the Democrats can't bring themselves to cross. It's been proven over and over, and the Democrats refuse to buy it.

Just what tax rate of "the rich" do Democrats what? And who is "rich" in Democrat eyes? It seems anyone with a job is "rich" to a Democrat!

[MTAtech]

Chuck, that's ridiculous. Simple arithmetic and history disproves the theory that lower taxes create so much economic activity that the government brings in more revenue. If taxes are cut from 25% to 20% GDP must rise by 25% to make up the revenue loss. GDP has risen by 3-4% in recent years after the recession. History proves it also. Reagan believed that theory and lowered taxes in 81 and 82. When the deficit reached record levels, he raised taxes in 1983. Bush1 had a similar experience. Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed and the first surplus since 1969 arose.

Budget Year and Deficit/(Surplus)
1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
1993 (Bill Clinton) $255 billion
1994 (Bill Clinton) $203 billion
1995 (Bill Clinton) $164 billion
1996 (Bill Clinton) $107 billion
1997 (Bill Clinton) $22 billion
1998 (Bill Clinton) ($69 billion surplus)
1999 (Bill Clinton) ($124 billion surplus)
2000 (Bill Clinton) ($237 billion surplus)
2001 (Bill Clinton) ($127 billion surplus)
2002 (George W. Bush) $159 billion
2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
2006 (George W. Bush) $297 billion (projected)

[Pexster]

Apparently you just can't make the leap, MTAtech. Seriously, the problem is that if one believes whole-heartedly in the supply-side proposition, there is no convincing argument otherwise, as one can either argue that the effects are immediate, or that they lag by whatever number of years necessary to make them fit the curve. It's a losing proposition to argue otherwise.

[MTAtech]

Pex, the fact that after showering the well-off with trillions of dollars of tax cuts we just passed 2000's revenue figures for the first time should be proof enough that the supply-side theory doesn't work.

If one examines the claims they were making to get the tax-cuts passed, anyone can see the failure. He promised huge increases in jobs, budget surpluses and a strong economy. The stock market hit a five year high a month or so ago but the jobs and surpluses missed the train. Most workers have gotten a decrease in income; the spread between the rich and poor has widened as did the shrinking of the middle-class.

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Chuck, that's ridiculous. Simple arithmetic and history disproves the theory that lower taxes create so much economic activity that the government brings in more revenue. If taxes are cut from 25% to 20% GDP must rise by 25% to make up the revenue loss. GDP has risen by 3-4% in recent years after the recession. History proves it also. Reagan believed that theory and lowered taxes in 81 and 82. When the deficit reached record levels, he raised taxes in 1983. Bush1 had a similar experience. Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed and the first surplus since 1969 arose.

Budget Year and Deficit/(Surplus)
1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
1993 (Bill Clinton) $255 billion
1994 (Bill Clinton) $203 billion
1995 (Bill Clinton) $164 billion
1996 (Bill Clinton) $107 billion
1997 (Bill Clinton) $22 billion
1998 (Bill Clinton) ($69 billion surplus)
1999 (Bill Clinton) ($124 billion surplus)
2000 (Bill Clinton) ($237 billion surplus)
2001 (Bill Clinton) ($127 billion surplus)
2002 (George W. Bush) $159 billion
2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
2006 (George W. Bush) $297 billion (projected)

Where is the link to this?