Huge Drop In Deficit Stronger Than Expected

[red states rule]

More bad news for the left. Once again more proof tax cuts work. Will Dems admit it or push for their $400 billion tax INCREASE


Budget deficit narrows to $205 billion
7/11/2007, 9:58 a.m. EDT
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.

It's also a gain over the $244 billion predicted by President Bush in February, but not as great an improvement as anticipated by other forecasters.

Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance as the White House's Office of Management and Budget as part of its midyear update of the budget picture.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/wash...-10/1184158749191210.xml&storylist=washington

 

[red states rule]

I wonder if libs will blame Bush

 

[red states rule]

WashPost Notes Deficit's Drop, But Reuters Gives More Context
Posted by Ken Shepherd on July 11, 2007 - 14:59.
The Washington Post today reported how the White House expects the federal budget deficit to shrink, but placed it in a five-paragraph story below the fold on page A6. Yet a Reuters story on the same development noted something that the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery left out of her story. The new White House figure of $205 billion "is still higher than many private forecasts, which have pegged the deficit at around $150 billion."

What's more, Post reporter Montgomery included a reference to President Bush crediting his tax cuts with the revenue surge, but added "that has been challenged by many economists." Montgomery failed to name any such economist, much less his/her rationale. After all, if tax revenue is growing at unexpected rates following tax cuts, are there many economists who actually expect tax revenues to roll in at a faster pace when levied at their pre-Bush tax cut levels?

http://newsbusters.org/node/14021

 

[ReillyT]

More bad news for the left. Once again more proof tax cuts work. Will Dems admit it or push for their $400 billion tax INCREASE


Budget deficit narrows to $205 billion
7/11/2007, 9:58 a.m. EDT
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.

It's also a gain over the $244 billion predicted by President Bush in February, but not as great an improvement as anticipated by other forecasters.

Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance as the White House's Office of Management and Budget as part of its midyear update of the budget picture.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/wash...-10/1184158749191210.xml&storylist=washington

I think it may be a stretch to say that only a $205 billion deficit means that the tax cuts work.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

democratic talking points.

1. america bad
2. americas fault
3. lets give the terrorits a hug
4. bush bad
5. bush bad
6. bush bad
7. anyone who disagree is a nazi and our enemy and we must shout him down, and/or physically assault him.

WashPost Notes Deficit's Drop, But Reuters Gives More Context
Posted by Ken Shepherd on July 11, 2007 - 14:59.
The Washington Post today reported how the White House expects the federal budget deficit to shrink, but placed it in a five-paragraph story below the fold on page A6. Yet a Reuters story on the same development noted something that the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery left out of her story. The new White House figure of $205 billion "is still higher than many private forecasts, which have pegged the deficit at around $150 billion."

What's more, Post reporter Montgomery included a reference to President Bush crediting his tax cuts with the revenue surge, but added "that has been challenged by many economists." Montgomery failed to name any such economist, much less his/her rationale. After all, if tax revenue is growing at unexpected rates following tax cuts, are there many economists who actually expect tax revenues to roll in at a faster pace when levied at their pre-Bush tax cut levels?

http://newsbusters.org/node/14021

 

[red states rule]

Libs can't undersatnd how LOWER taxes can INCREASE revenues to the government

 

[ReillyT]

Libs can't undersatnd how LOWER taxes can INCREASE revenues to the government

That is pretty obviously a silly statement. I don't think anyone questions that certain tax cuts at certain times for certain people can increase tax revenue. I do think that there are plenty of people who question what is the right tax cut? When do you provide the tax cut? To whom do you provide the tax cut?


At least attempt to maintain a veneer of rationality.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The government does NOT have the right to raise taxes, just cause it feels like it, it needs a reason. although im not an economist so ill shut up now.

Libs can't undersatnd how LOWER taxes can INCREASE revenues to the government

 

[Angel Heart]

Yet, how many times over have we shown them it works.

Stock market is at all time highs, the unemployment rate is low, the deficit is lower, yet they don't see. They tend to be the blind leading the blind.

 

[red states rule]

Yet, how many times over have we shown them it works.

Stock market is at all time highs, the unemployment rate is low, the deficit is lower, yet they don't see. They tend to be the blind leading the blind.

But to libs, the economy sucks since a Republican is President

 

[ReillyT]

Yet, how many times over have we shown them it works.

Stock market is at all time highs, the unemployment rate is low, the deficit is lower, yet they don't see. They tend to be the blind leading the blind.

To be fair, one might point out that a) the stock market has always grown over time, so we shouldn't expect it not to reach new heights over any extended period; b) the unemployment rate is low, but it was lower during portions of the Clinton administration, and c) the deficit is not lower (would need a frame of reference) - it is merely projected to be lower this year than originally forecast.

 

[red states rule]

To be fair, one might point out that a) the stock market has always grown over time, so we shouldn't expect it not to reach new heights over any extended period; b) the unemployment rate is low, but it was lower during portions of the Clinton administration, and c) the deficit is not lower (would need a frame of reference) - it is merely projected to be lower this year than originally forecast.

The Dow has gone up about 5000 points since the weeks after 9-11

The average for the unemployment rate is lower then the 70's, 80's, and 90's

The deficit has been dropping for the last 4 years - and revenues are at record levels

ALL DO TO TAX CUTS

 

[Angel Heart]

To be fair, one might point out that a) the stock market has always grown over time, so we shouldn't expect it not to reach new heights over any extended period; b) the unemployment rate is low, but it was lower during portions of the Clinton administration, and c) the deficit is not lower (would need a frame of reference) - it is merely projected to be lower this year than originally forecast.

The stock market I'll give you...

But the unemployment rate... Maybe you haven't seen the numbers in a while...


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

1993-02-01 7.1
1993-03-01 7.0
1993-04-01 7.1
1993-05-01 7.1
1993-06-01 7.0
1993-07-01 6.9
1993-08-01 6.8
1993-09-01 6.7
1993-10-01 6.8
1993-11-01 6.6
1993-12-01 6.5
1994-01-01 6.6
1994-02-01 6.6
1994-03-01 6.5
1994-04-01 6.4
1994-05-01 6.1
1994-06-01 6.1
1994-07-01 6.1
1994-08-01 6.0
1994-09-01 5.9
1994-10-01 5.8
1994-11-01 5.6
1994-12-01 5.5
1995-01-01 5.6
1995-02-01 5.4
1995-03-01 5.4
1995-04-01 5.8
1995-05-01 5.6
1995-06-01 5.6
1995-07-01 5.7
1995-08-01 5.7
1995-09-01 5.6
1995-10-01 5.5
1995-11-01 5.6
1995-12-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1996-02-01 5.5
1996-03-01 5.5
1996-04-01 5.6
1996-05-01 5.6
1996-06-01 5.3
1996-07-01 5.5
1996-08-01 5.1
1996-09-01 5.2
1996-10-01 5.2
1996-11-01 5.4
1996-12-01 5.4
1997-01-01 5.3
1997-02-01 5.2
1997-03-01 5.2
1997-04-01 5.1
1997-05-01 4.9
1997-06-01 5.0
1997-07-01 4.9
1997-08-01 4.8
1997-09-01 4.9
1997-10-01 4.7
1997-11-01 4.6
1997-12-01 4.7
1998-01-01 4.6
1998-02-01 4.6
1998-03-01 4.7
1998-04-01 4.3
1998-05-01 4.4
1998-06-01 4.5
1998-07-01 4.5
1998-08-01 4.5
1998-09-01 4.6
1998-10-01 4.5
1998-11-01 4.4
1998-12-01 4.4
1999-01-01 4.3
1999-02-01 4.4
1999-03-01 4.2
1999-04-01 4.3
1999-05-01 4.2
1999-06-01 4.3
1999-07-01 4.3
1999-08-01 4.2
1999-09-01 4.2
1999-10-01 4.1
1999-11-01 4.1
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.5
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.9
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.8
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.8
2004-04-01 5.6
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.4
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2
2005-02-01 5.4
2005-03-01 5.2
2005-04-01 5.1
2005-05-01 5.1
2005-06-01 5.0
2005-07-01 5.0
2005-08-01 4.9
2005-09-01 5.1
2005-10-01 5.0
2005-11-01 5.0
2005-12-01 4.9
2006-01-01 4.7
2006-02-01 4.8
2006-03-01 4.7
2006-04-01 4.7
2006-05-01 4.6
2006-06-01 4.6
2006-07-01 4.8
2006-08-01 4.7
2006-09-01 4.6
2006-10-01 4.4
2006-11-01 4.5
2006-12-01 4.5
2007-01-01 4.6
2007-02-01 4.5
2007-03-01 4.4
2007-04-01 4.5
2007-05-01 4.5
2007-06-01 4.5

Bush's numbers are very healthy and have been along. But yet you have ragged on him for it.

Here's a bit of info on what a 'healthy' unemployment rate is:

http://www.moneychimp.com/glossary/unemployment_rate.htm

Unemployment Rate
Percentage of employable people actively seeking work, out of the total number of employable people; determined in a monthly survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (website: www.bls.gov).
An unemployment rate of about 4% - 6% is considered "healthy". Lower rates are seen as inflationary due to the upward pressure on salaries; higher rates threaten a decrease in consumer spending.

 

[ReillyT]

The Dow has gone up about 5000 points since the weeks after 9-11

The average for the unemployment rate is lower then the 70's, 80's, and 90's

The deficit has been dropping for the last 4 years - and revenues are at record levels

ALL DO TO TAX CUTS

There are things that are true in what you say... and things that are not.

The Dow has rebounded nicely, although I don't know what a normal rate of growth would be for the Dow, especially post-recession. So, I guess I am saying I don't know the overall importance of that statistic.

True, the average unemployment rate per decade is lower in the new millenium than in the 90s as a decade. However, the unemployment was at a lower rated during 1998-2001, after which time the tax cuts were enacted. Inconclusive?
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

The deficit has not been dropping for four years. It has been dropping since about mid-2004. However, over the whole of the Bush presidency, we have gone from a $526B surplus, to (at this moment apparently) a $205B deficit.
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

One can of course attribute this to a number of factors, i.e., the war, Hurrican Katrina, etc. Nonetheless, I don't think you can say that the tax cuts have definitely worked.

 

[red states rule]

Libs have seen it

Under Clinton the rate was great, but now under Bush, the rate stinks. The jobs created under Pres Bush are not the "right kind of jobs"

 

[ReillyT]

The stock market I'll give you...

But the unemployment rate... Maybe you haven't seen the numbers in a while...


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt


Bush's numbers are very healthy and have been along. But yet you have ragged on him for it.

Here's a bit of info on what a 'healthy' unemployment rate is:

http://www.moneychimp.com/glossary/unemployment_rate.htm

The concept of what a normal unemployment rate is changed in the late 90s when we were able to maintain an unemployment rate in the high 3s/ low 4s without inflation. Prior to the 90s, this wasn't though possible.

I am not saying, by any means, that the unemployment rate right now is bad. I am merely pointing out that the unemployment rate was actually lower during the latter part of the Clinton presidency, and began rising in March of the year that Bush became president. As a result, I don't know how strong the claim is that the tax cuts are the reason for our low unemployment.

Try not to take every disagreement I have with your assertions as me having a "ragged" on Bush.

 

[red states rule]

The concept of what a normal unemployment rate is changed in the late 90s when we were able to maintain an unemployment rate in the high 3s/ low 4s without inflation. Prior to the 90s, this wasn't though possible.

I am not saying, by any means, that the unemployment rate right now is bad. I am merely pointing out that the unemployment rate was actually lower during the latter part of the Clinton presidency, and began rising in March of the year that Bush became president. As a result, I don't know how strong the claim is that the tax cuts are the reason for our low unemployment.

Try not to take every disagreement I have with your assertions as me having a "ragged" on Bush.

Considering tax cuts worked for JFK, Roanld Reagan, and Now Pres Bush - tax cuts do work everytime thye are tried

 

[ReillyT]

Libs have seen it

Under Clinton the rate was great, but now under Bush, the rate stinks. The jobs created under Pres Bush are not the "right kind of jobs"

Are you simple?

I never said that the unemployment rate under Bush is poor, merely that it was lower under Clinton during 1998-2000. As a result, I question whether this supports your argument that the tax cuts are the impetus for our low unemployment.

 

[red states rule]

Are you simple?

I never said that the unemployment rate under Bush is poor, merely that it was lower under Clinton during 1998-2000. As a result, I question whether this supports your argument that the tax cuts are the impetus for our low unemployment.

Did I say you?

I am saying what the Dems say evertime good economic news comes in. Nothing is good about America while Bush is President

 

[ReillyT]

Considering tax cuts worked for JFK, Roanld Reagan, and Now Pres Bush - tax cuts do work everytime thye are tried

They apparently did work for Reagan. I have no idea about JFK.

The idea that any level of tax is always good seems a bit simplistic. To some degree, the government needs funds to operate, and a very high deficit indicates that the government does not currently have sufficient funds. (By the way, I am not even sure that I have a problem with the size of our deficit, but obviously, at some point, a deficit could be too large)

Tax cuts should stimulate spending, which should result in higher corporate revenues, and so on, and so on. However, not all tax cuts are equal. Some types are better than others at stimulating spending, and this is without even getting into issues of equity among taxpayers.