Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years

[manu1959]

this can't be possible....bush is an idiot...tax cuts don't work....the war costs too much....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/D8MJU5901.html

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

 

[Annie]

this can't be possible....bush is an idiot...tax cuts don't work....the war costs too much....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/D8MJU5901.html

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

Good catch! I was just going to post the same.

 

[jillian]

this can't be possible....bush is an idiot...tax cuts don't work....the war costs too much....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/D8MJU5901.html

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

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.

 

[manu1959]

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.

but there is a deficit are you upset that he is paying it down? do you want him to run it up higher? you act like you want america to go bk just so you can be right?

rhetorical

first tell me why was there a surplus? then tell me why the surplus became a deficit?

then tell me how he is paying it down all the while paying out billions to fund a war and spend billions on katrina?

and lastly, his plan seems to be working? what is yours? do the opposite?

 

[red states rule]

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.

Any good news pisses off libs. Libs are not happy unless they are bitching about something. One thing libs have lived by for the last six years is do not, under any circimstances, give Pres Bush credit for anything.

Dispite the fact libs ranted how these tax cuts, that has given us a booming economy and a record Dow Jones, would destroy the economy, cost millions of jobs, drain funding for "vital" government programs, and kill people when they could not obtain these "vital" government services.

Like Pres Reagan, Pres Bush has served up a huge plate of crow for libs to dine on.

Enjoy!!!!!

 

[eots]

July 18, 2005
America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER
Washington

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter

 

[manu1959]

July 18, 2005
America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER
Washington

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter

no worries grandma nancy is in charge now......she will raise taxes, withdraw troops...rasie the minimum wage and make evrything all better

 

[Annie]

July 18, 2005
America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER
Washington

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter

This is the last link I'm 'giving you-from now on; unsourced cut and paste will be deleted:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0718-26.htm

 

[red states rule]

Libs cannot handle good news. They spread bad news like a virus and live their lives looking for bad news

The liberal media will igniore this story as they do anything that blows their doom and gloom message to pieces

The deficit through the first three months of the current fiscal year is almost $39 billion, or 32.7%, lower than last year's comparable figure. Receipts are up a bit over 8%, as the supply-side tax cuts continue their "magic." The real surprise is that outlays have barely budged, actually going up at a rate that is substantially lower than inflation (Psst -- Don't tell Congress that). Will the media notice?
http://newsbusters.org/node/10133

 

[Hamiltonian]

The good news is the deficit was decreasing and hitting all time lows. The bad news is now it is supposed to start increasing again. The article you listed cites the expected deficit to increase by $40-90 billion based on projections, which amounts to roughly a 15-30% increase. More good news is that those projections could change to be more favorable.

 

[manu1959]

The good news is the deficit was decreasing and hitting all time lows. The bad news is now it is supposed to start increasing again. The article you listed cites the expected deficit to increase by $40-90 billion based on projections, which amounts to roughly a 15-30% increase. More good news is that those projections could change to be more favorable.

yes i read that part .... however predictions and projections are not facts they are guesses....the preditions and projects had predicted that the latest facts would not be what they are....so until it happens you are just guessing....but hey the dems are in charge now they just spent billions to check every cargo container on the planet with technology that does not exist....soon they will raise taxes and kill off the economy and then the predictions will be correct.....but hey i could be wrong maybe the dems will allow waht is working to continue.....

 

[red states rule]

The good news is the deficit was decreasing and hitting all time lows. The bad news is now it is supposed to start increasing again. The article you listed cites the expected deficit to increase by $40-90 billion based on projections, which amounts to roughly a 15-30% increase. More good news is that those projections could change to be more favorable.

The "experts" have been saying that since the deficit began shrinking. I laugh when the liberal media runs stories on the economy. The always say how the "experts" were surprised, or how the good economic numbers "were unexpected by the experts"

I say the liberal media needs to find new experts how know what the hell is going on

 

[Hamiltonian]

The "experts" have been saying that since the deficit began shrinking. I laugh when the liberal media runs stories on the economy. The always say how the "experts" were surprised, or how the good economic numbers "were unexpected by the experts"

I say the liberal media needs to find new experts how know what the hell is going on

It depends on what you mean by what's going on. You know some experts have started telling the Democrats not to worry about balancing the budget at all. They say why care, because Republican spending and cutting taxes will ruin those anyways, allowing only Rep programs to receive funding. While having a budget surplus is Economically optimal, they say it is politically impossible because it's an unstable equilibrium, and ultimately worthless in the long run. They think in our political system whatever one party manages to save the other party will manage to spend.

yes i read that part .... however predictions and projections are not facts they are guesses....the preditions and projects had predicted that the latest facts would not be what they are....so until it happens you are just guessing....but hey the dems are in charge now they just spent billions to check every cargo container on the planet with technology that does not exist....soon they will raise taxes and kill off the economy and then the predictions will be correct.....but hey i could be wrong maybe the dems will allow waht is working to continue.....

I wouldn't exactly say the tax cuts worked. Their immediate effect is a pretty clear drop in government revenue, indicating that it was a bad shift on the Laffer Curve.

The tough thing about talking about how things effect our economy, as I think you know, is knowing what factors caused what conditions, and being able to measure the effects. There are so many confounding variables. How do you know that Reagan's tax cuts or Clinton's tax increases caused our growth during the 1990s, or whether that was completely exogenous technological growth. How do you know that the tax cuts are what are causing our growth now.

Can you say exactly are these tax cuts are increasing economic growth now. Did they increase consumption, investment, and how much is directly attributable to the tax cuts? Why must our economic condition only have resulted from these taxes cuts and not some from other factor? Why did they cause an initial decline in our government revenue and the effects are only coming through now. Is this growth coming from the upper, middle, or lower class. Are we seeing capital, labor, or TFP growth, and is there capital deepening? Let me see your growth accounting statistics. This is why the experts have such a hard time Red.

 

[red states rule]

So we should not call the "experts" when they get it wrong?

When JFK cut taxes revenues went up

When reagan cut taxes revenue to the government doubled to over $1 trillion

Now when Pres Bush cut taxes revenues went up

How many more time do libs have to be proven wrong?

When you cut taxes it causes economic growth and an increase to revenues

 

[Hamiltonian]

So we should not call the "experts" when they get it wrong?

When JFK cut taxes revenues went up

When reagan cut taxes revenue to the government doubled to over $1 trillion

Now when Pres Bush cut taxes revenues went up

How many more time do libs have to be proven wrong?

When you cut taxes it causes economic growth and an increase to revenues

The revenue to the government is always going up. That's the nature of inflation. Below is an article that covers the Reagan tax cuts. When Bush cut taxes, revenues actually decreased, then started increasing again. Normally revenues are always increasing, so this shows that his tax cuts reduced revenues. Sometimes decreasing taxes can be good, and increase tax revenue. Look up the Laffer Curve, and think about it like this: if you cut taxes so low that we only paid about $1 in taxes, then that wouldn't increase government revenue. There is a tax level in there that brings in the maximum amount of revenue, and having a tax cut can either bring us closer to the maximum or further away from it. The Bush tax cuts pushed us away from the maximum.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax.htm

Ok, tell me where does all of this economic growth come from? Supply side economics relies on a microeconomic model. That is a worker has two sources of happiness, which are leisure time and goods bought with money. The worker can either spend time at leisure and being happy, or working at a wage which he uses to buy the goods, which makes him happy. The idea behind supply side economics is that if you cut the income tax, that is the same as a wage increase, and that with a wage increase will give the worker more happiness for each hour worked, and cause him to be more productive. However, there is a competing effect, which is that the worker can make just as much money as he did before while spending less time working, and therefore he will not want to work as much, and he will spend more time at leisure rather than at work. In reality these two affects tend to offset each other.

So since you have all of this data can you tell me those things I asked in my last post. I'll repeat them here, and would like it if you could provide all of that data for the tax cuts you are claiming, and the current tax cut from the Bush administration. I'll repeat the information I want:

Can you say exactly are these tax cuts are increasing economic growth now. Did they increase consumption, investment, and how much is directly attributable to the tax cuts? Why must our economic condition only have resulted from these taxes cuts and not some from other factor? Why did the current tax cuts cause an initial decline in our government revenue and the effects are only coming through now. Is this growth coming from the upper, middle, or lower class. Are we seeing capital, labor, or TFP growth, and is there capital deepening? Please list out your growth accounting statistics.

 

[Emmett]

I'm certainly no economic guru like you fellows however I do know this. Where does it stop, 55%, why not 56, or 67%. Why not just force everyone to work and give them only stamps for food.

Reagen cuts taxes and revenues went down before they went up, What! Man, that sounds like I voted for it before I voted against it but I don't know rather I want it.

Mr. Reagen and Mr Bush left us in such a good financial situation Billy really didn't have to do anything except screw chicks and ride the wagon for four years which made his economy look great and he was re-elected to screw more chicks.

I can not for the life of me figure how raising more taxes solves the problems of our economic situation. CUT EXPENSES is the wise solution.

Now, I am a businessman and have started and ran some pretty succesful businesses, here's my take: you have a department that is completely NOT producing (for instance, deadbeats who won't work) you eliminate those workers and hire more or you downsize by contracting out that part of your labor force to a company that CAN provide effiecient workers. My point, STOP giving away free money to deadbeats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A few years, deficit gone! Where is the problem.

More common sense solutions: A 19 year old mother of three children from three different "babies daddies" comes to the hospital for another free baby delivery, deliver the baby and steralize the mother. More money saved!

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.

Sterilize child molestors, ALL of them! Millions are spent from our tax dollars to provide these sleeze bags defense in their legal cases because they are usually indigent. SAVE MILLIONS!!!!!! MILLIONS!!!!!

There are all kind of ways I could think of to save money and as mentioned, I am no economist. This just does not seem so tough to me. Raising taxes again and again to pay these ridicolous tabs is completely ludicrus.

What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Emmett]

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.

Lets talk about the stock market!

 

[Hamiltonian]

I'm certainly no economic guru like you fellows however I do know this. Where does it stop, 55%, why not 56, or 67%. Why not just force everyone to work and give them only stamps for food.

Reagen cuts taxes and revenues went down before they went up, What! Man, that sounds like I voted for it before I voted against it but I don't know rather I want it.

Mr. Reagen and Mr Bush left us in such a good financial situation Billy really didn't have to do anything except screw chicks and ride the wagon for four years which made his economy look great and he was re-elected to screw more chicks.

I can not for the life of me figure how raising more taxes solves the problems of our economic situation. CUT EXPENSES is the wise solution.

Now, I am a businessman and have started and ran some pretty succesful businesses, here's my take: you have a department that is completely NOT producing (for instance, deadbeats who won't work) you eliminate those workers and hire more or you downsize by contracting out that part of your labor force to a company that CAN provide effiecient workers. My point, STOP giving away free money to deadbeats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A few years, deficit gone! Where is the problem.

More common sense solutions: A 19 year old mother of three children from three different "babies daddies" comes to the hospital for another free baby delivery, deliver the baby and steralize the mother. More money saved!

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.

Sterilize child molestors, ALL of them! Millions are spent from our tax dollars to provide these sleeze bags defense in their legal cases because they are usually indigent. SAVE MILLIONS!!!!!! MILLIONS!!!!!

There are all kind of ways I could think of to save money and as mentioned, I am no economist. This just does not seem so tough to me. Raising taxes again and again to pay these ridicolous tabs is completely ludicrus.

What is so hard to understand about this?

The trouble is knowing what to cut. To get a budget surplus with our current income you would have to basically cut most funding to the Department of Defense. Even if we cut out Welfare, we would still need to cut a lot more. Cutting funding is easy to say, but hard to do politically. If either party cuts Defense spending the other party would pretty quickly jump on them and call them weak on Terror, responsible for losing the war in Iraq, and don't care about our troops.

Having a budget deficit and large national debt, many experts argue, is harmful to our Economic situation. They argument is that raising taxes helps increase government revenue, and is one side to cutting the deficit. The other side of the job is reducing spending.

 

[MtnBiker]

The other side of the job is reducing spending.

There is the key. The government is spending way to much money!

 

[manu1959]

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.