Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years

[Annie]

oh no this is just awful......

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/14/070114230239.dh0wbbv7.html

Even the US trade deficit, long a source of weakness, improved in the latest report to 58.2 billion dollars in November, as exports increased.

I was reading that. Unemployment holding at 4.4%; interest rates holding; retail sales strong; ppb less than $52.

If Bush is so stupid, why is the US doing so well?

 

[bush lover]

Is this guy Bernanke some cranky liberal? He needs to talk to our Vice President Cheney, who agrees with our late President Reagan that deficits DO NOT MATTER. Japan's national debt, by proportion, is way bigger than ours, and they're making lots of money on cars and all the stuff they export to us. The only good thing this Bernanke guys says is that we should cut back BIG TIME on welfare programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, health care and all of that. You can add education too, i.e., finally abolish the education dept.



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300367_bernanke19.html

 

[Adam's Apple]

Make ALL welfare reciepiants work!!!!!!!!!!!! They can pick up trash, clean windows, wash government vehicles, perform various odd jobs and other tasks but STOP giving money to folks who will not work!!! It is stupid, just plain stupid.

How I wish those employed in the government in Washington, D.C. were as intelligent. I volunteer for a community non-profit which deals with welfare cases every single day of the year, and I see the results of our welfare system up close and personal. It's quite depressing when I consider that our city is not the only city in the U.S. plagued by this problem on a daily/ weekly/monthly/yearly basis.

For the life of me, I can't understand why our government keeps throwing money at a welfare system that does not work. Instead of handing out monthly maintenance money to these non-contributors of society, the money would be better spent setting up programs to train these people to do some kind of useful work that would provide them with a living wage. It's a common sense approach and draws from life's experiences. Perhaps the problem is that the people who serve in our government have neither common sense nor everyday, useful experiences to draw upon.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

So he runs up a deficit, pays off a bit... and you're applauding him? There shouldn't be a deficit in the first place.

Now... let's talk about the national debt.

that's what happens when u go to war smh

 

[Darwins Friend]

44.5 x $7.00 per American Tax-Payer. Oooooh - we're in the chips now!

When do we get back to the level of surplus he was speaking of during his first State of the Union?

 

[Darwins Friend]

Hello?

 

[manu1959]

Hello?

if an idot posts" hello" on a message board and no one answers does the idot exist?

 

[Darwins Friend]

if an idot posts" hello" on a message board and no one answers does the idot exist?

BAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!!!

 

[theHawk]

So he runs up a deficit, pays off a bit... and you're applauding him? There shouldn't be a deficit in the first place.

Now... let's talk about the national debt.

National debt? Its been enourmous since 1790 and has grown steadily since. It was at 5 and half trillion when Billy boy left office, now stands at 8.6 trillion.
More importantly than the number of dollars the debt is at, is the percentage of GDP it is.

 

[Darwins Friend]

$25,714 for every American Tax-Payer added since GWB took office. Nice legacy.

 

[theHawk]

$25,714 for every American Tax-Payer added since GWB took office. Nice legacy.

Added ? not quite. It was already about $20,000 per person in 2000. So lets stop trying to spin this in a way that makes it out to look like GWB is going to make every American individual have to pay out "$25,000 more" to pay off the national debt, thats not how it works. Looking at the National Debt as a percentage of the GDP, we're only HALF of what we were at the end of WWII, and we're still about the same % as we were in the 1990s. So, lets give the doomsday the sky is falling propaganda a rest

 

[Darwins Friend]

47.3% National Debt increase in 6 years of the Bush administration.

An average increase of 7.9% per year.

$3,100,000,000,000 additional debt added to the original $5,500,000,000,000 = $8,600,000,000,0000, right?

120,556,000 American tax-payers filed individual/joint returns last year.

GDP is a function of EVERYTHING PRODUCED in the entire economy. Please explain what that means on an individual tax-payer basis and why the outlook is so rosy.

 

[theHawk]

Because the national debt has been in since 1790, its not something that has to be paid off by all taxpayers every fiscal year. You're telling me that on average the american taxpayer isn't going to be able to pay off a 25k debt over the next 30 years? Thats rediculous, I pay over 25K in taxes myself in less than 3 years. Besides, if Americans weren't able to pay it off, why would creditors give the money in the first place? Obviously the creditors have a little faith in the American people and economy, unlike you?

 

[Hamiltonian]

Because the national debt has been in since 1790, its not something that has to be paid off by all taxpayers every fiscal year. You're telling me that on average the american taxpayer isn't going to be able to pay off a 25k debt over the next 30 years? Thats rediculous, I pay over 25K in taxes myself in less than 3 years. Besides, if Americans weren't able to pay it off, why would creditors give the money in the first place? Obviously the creditors have a little faith in the American people and economy, unlike you?

One of the problems is that we'll have to pay off more than 25k debt. Our government keeps increasing the debt instead of paying it off. We don't see many budget surpluses. Also, we're having to pay interest on that 25k, so it's really more than 25k.

Why else is a national debt bad? Because it hurts our economy, especially in the long term, by decreasing investment.

 

[Darwins Friend]

One of the problems is that we'll have to pay off more than 25k debt. Our government keeps increasing the debt instead of paying it off. We don't see many budget surpluses. Also, we're having to pay interest on that 25k, so it's really more than 25k.

Why else is a national debt bad? Because it hurts our economy, especially in the long term, by decreasing investment.

Well, somebody gets it.

 

[red states rule]

One of the problems is that we'll have to pay off more than 25k debt. Our government keeps increasing the debt instead of paying it off. We don't see many budget surpluses. Also, we're having to pay interest on that 25k, so it's really more than 25k.

Why else is a national debt bad? Because it hurts our economy, especially in the long term, by decreasing investment.

The annual budget deficit has been shrinking - rapidly. The tax cuts are INCREASING revenue. Now if the Dems keep their promise (however not a chance) to control spending, we will have a surplus in no time

Of course Dems want to screw things up by RAISING taxes

 

[Hamiltonian]

The annual budget deficit has been shrinking - rapidly. The tax cuts are INCREASING revenue. Now if the Dems keep their promise (however not a chance) to control spending, we will have a surplus in no time

Of course Dems want to screw things up by RAISING taxes

Over the last six years the annual budget deficit has not been shrinking compared to when Clinton left office.

The tax cuts have decreased revenue compared to what the government would be earning if we didn't have the tax cuts.

 

[red states rule]

Over the last six years the annual budget deficit has not been shrinking compared to when Clinton left office.

The tax cuts have decreased revenue compared to what the government would be earning if we didn't have the tax cuts.

Once again your DNC talking points fall short



US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; [email protected]

 

[Hamiltonian]

Once again your DNC talking points fall short



US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; [email protected]

Once again, you seem to fail to get the point. Without the tax cuts we would have taken in more than 85.8 billion.

 

[red states rule]

Once again, you seem to fail to get the point. Without the tax cuts we would have taken in more than 85.8 billion.

So why not take the tax rates back to Carter where the top producers were paying 70%

Or if we really want to incrase our revenue lets go to 90$% as was with Kennedy

You are so full of it. With higher taxes, the economy would not be expanding, thus fewer people working, thus less tax collected

The revenues increased when Kennedy cut taxes

The revenues DOUBLED under Reagan to over $1 trillion in eight years with tax cuts

and revenues are soaring under Pres Bush

Libs cannot see the forest for the trees