Deficits - Still Growing

[Max Power]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/ap_on_go_co/democrats_deficit

WASHINGTON - Even before the cost of Hurricane Katrina is added to the federal ledger, a Congressional Budget Office study commissioned by Democrats predicts President Bush will fail to keep his promise to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office.

The study by the nonpartisan CBO assumes that Congress will heed Bush's call for new tax cuts and for making those passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent. It also assumes a big slowdown in spending on the Iraq war, tight caps on domestic agency budgets and new individual Social Security accounts.

...

 

[ProudDem]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/ap_on_go_co/democrats_deficit

The only good news is that we may be in such a terrible state by the 2008 election, people will want to vote for a democrat. Remember what happened to Bush senior......

 

[OCA]

The only good news is that we may be in such a terrible state by the 2008 election, people will want to vote for a democrat. Remember what happened to Bush senior......

This economy could go into another depression and still Demos won't win, know why? Social issues, you guys support every freaky and non-normal thing going, people usually end up voting for normality.

I mean Iraq was not going well in '04 and still you guys lost!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

^^^ If democrats were smart, they'd drop their current gay marriage position like a bad habit. Instead, they'd ask the sensible question, "Why should the government--any government--be involved in certifying the bond between two people?".

 

[Avatar4321]

The only good news is that we may be in such a terrible state by the 2008 election, people will want to vote for a democrat. Remember what happened to Bush senior......

Amazing, you just proved that Limbaugh was right. The Democrats have positioned themselves so that the only way they can succeed is if the country doesn't. And you've shown that Proud Democrats everywhere have no problem wishing for the worst to happen to our country just so they can regain their power.

 

[KarlMarx]

wait a minute.... I read that the deficit was shrinking, not growing.... i.e. until Katrina hit....

the reason given for the drop in the deficit was Bush's tax cuts...

you must have the federal deficit confused with the federal debt

If you really were concerned about the deficit and the debt, you'd be advocating cutting government spending, especially in social programs, many of which are totally ineffective.

 

[KarlMarx]

^^^ If democrats were smart, they'd drop their current gay marriage position like a bad habit. Instead, they'd ask the sensible question, "Why should the government--any government--be involved in certifying the bond between two people?".

Good question.... and along that same line of thinking...

1. Why does the government have a Dept of Education? Since its creation in 1977, SAT scores have continued their free fall... get rid of it.

2. Privatize the Post Office. Private industry has shown that they can deliver mail (especially the "positively, absolutely has to get there overnight"... variety)

3. PBS - why do we need that? There are so many choices on cable TV anymore, it's unbelievable ( "the Golf channel"? I can't believe anyone would actually pay to watch someone play golf). Why are we funding this? Cut them loose and let them make their money the old fashioned way by earning it, rather than having taxpayers fund them

4. The NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) - after funding "Piss Christ" what more can I say?

5. Sarbanes Oxley ---- what a piece of legislation..... after the Enron scandal, corporations are now required by federal law to submit, on an annual basis, truckloads of documentation detailing how they ensure accurate financial reporting. I have seen this firsthand.... I've been forced to wait for database administrators and programmers to finish tasks that I needed to be completed because they were busy complying to this silly piece of legislation. The government should have contented itself with throwing the scoundrels that precipitated those scandals in jail.

6. I'll probably make some moderators mad with this one (but, then maybe not).... either eliminate unions from the government or at least make union membership strictly voluntary. Unions seem to be more interested in collecting dues money from their members rather than looking after their interests. For the taxpayer they push up the cost of government services and make it virtually impossible for the government to fire inept employees.

7. Sugar price supports --- the government spends billions of dollars so that you and I, the American consumer, can pay several times the world average for sugar. And for the benefit of a handful of (very wealthy) farmers... why?

those are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head .... if I really wanted to, I could come up with more complete list but then my post would fill up the database

 

[Annie]

...6. I'll probably make some moderators mad with this one (but, then maybe not).... either eliminate unions from the government or at least make union membership strictly voluntary. Unions seem to be more interested in collecting dues money from their members rather than looking after their interests. For the taxpayer they push up the cost of government services and make it virtually impossible for the government to fire inept employees...

Not me! I think the NEA is as bad as ANSWER.

 

[Max Power]

wait a minute.... I read that the deficit was shrinking, not growing.... i.e. until Katrina hit....

Well, no offense, but I'm going to take the word of the CBO over "some guy on the internet," on the state of the deficit. You're going to have to, at the very least, provide a link or SOMETHING to back up your statement that the deficit is shrinking.

Since the article in the original post is no longer there, here's another copy
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1113089

The study predicts that the $331 billion budget deficit projected for the current budget year would rise to $370 billion by 2009

the reason given for the drop in the deficit was Bush's tax cuts...

Umm, no... there is no drop in the deficit... it's increasing.

you must have the federal deficit confused with the federal debt

Umm, no. It appears that you're the one who is confused.

If you really were concerned about the deficit and the debt, you'd be advocating cutting government spending, especially in social programs, many of which are totally ineffective.

I really am concerned about the deficit and the debt, and I really do advocate cutting government spending across the board.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

If democrats were smart, they'd drop their current gay marriage position like a bad habit. Instead, they'd ask the sensible question, "Why should the government--any government--be involved in certifying the bond between two people?".

This is a good point. The word "marriage" is a religious term and should be stricken from the law books and replaced with "civil union."

As for government's interest in this matter, there are lots of reasons. The main reasons would be property rights. As in the event of a divorce, who would get what? There are also tax issues.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

^^^ If democrats were smart, they'd drop their current gay marriage position like a bad habit. Instead, they'd ask the sensible question, "Why should the government--any government--be involved in certifying the bond between two people?".

But they won't because the honest answer to this question spells out the conservative position.

 

[theHawk]

Amazing, you just proved that Limbaugh was right. The Democrats have positioned themselves so that the only way they can succeed is if the country doesn't. And you've shown that Proud Democrats everywhere have no problem wishing for the worst to happen to our country just so they can regain their power.

You're absolutely right, thats sickening that someone would say that kind of shit. A party that can't win on their own merits, only on the failure of others....great party...

 

[Bullypulpit]

On September 24th, Allan Greenspan tod France's finance minister, Thierry Breton, that America has "lost control" of its budget deficit. (<a href=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=14556+25-Sep-2005+RTRS&srch=Greenspan>Reuter's</a>)

The Republican leadership, once the epitome of fiscal responsibility, has run the deficit up to new highs. Their refusal to face the fiscal realities resulting from their decisions are breaking new ground in fiscal irresponsibility, as witnessed by their steadfast refusal to revisit the highway bill and cut the pork from it in order to help finance the Hurricane Katrina's and Rita's recovery operations in the Gulf. As for keeping the estate tax in place or rolling back tax cuts, both of which only provide tangible benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, well, those sacred cows can't be sacrificed for any cause.

So, as the Republican leadership in the White House and Congress continue to spend our tax-dollars like drunken sailors on liberty, they further undermine the security they promised to deliver in 2004. Every dollar of US debt held by foreign powers further erodes our security at home. The carpet-baggers and grifters currently occupying the halls of power in theis nation are its greatest threat.

 

[dilloduck]

On September 24th, Allan Greenspan tod France's finance minister, Thierry Breton, that America has "lost control" of its budget deficit. (<a href=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=14556+25-Sep-2005+RTRS&srch=Greenspan>Reuter's</a>)

The Republican leadership, once the epitome of fiscal responsibility, has run the deficit up to new highs. Their refusal to face the fiscal realities resulting from their decisions are breaking new ground in fiscal irresponsibility, as witnessed by their steadfast refusal to revisit the highway bill and cut the pork from it in order to help finance the Hurricane Katrina's and Rita's recovery operations in the Gulf. As for keeping the estate tax in place or rolling back tax cuts, both of which only provide tangible benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, well, those sacred cows can't be sacrificed for any cause.

So, as the Republican leadership in the White House and Congress continue to spend our tax-dollars like drunken sailors on liberty, they further undermine the security they promised to deliver in 2004. Every dollar of US debt held by foreign powers further erodes our security at home. The carpet-baggers and grifters currently occupying the halls of power in theis nation are its greatest threat.

Tax cuts raised revenues---the pork Highway bill IS being revisted.

YA the GOP has been on a spending spree but have you bothered to look at how much the Dems in LA wants the feds to spend on them?
No need to get hysterical.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

On September 24th, Allan Greenspan tod France's finance minister, Thierry Breton, that America has "lost control" of its budget deficit. (<a href=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=14556+25-Sep-2005+RTRS&srch=Greenspan>Reuter's</a>)

The Republican leadership, once the epitome of fiscal responsibility, has run the deficit up to new highs. Their refusal to face the fiscal realities resulting from their decisions are breaking new ground in fiscal irresponsibility, as witnessed by their steadfast refusal to revisit the highway bill and cut the pork from it in order to help finance the Hurricane Katrina's and Rita's recovery operations in the Gulf. As for keeping the estate tax in place or rolling back tax cuts, both of which only provide tangible benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, well, those sacred cows can't be sacrificed for any cause.

So, as the Republican leadership in the White House and Congress continue to spend our tax-dollars like drunken sailors on liberty, they further undermine the security they promised to deliver in 2004. Every dollar of US debt held by foreign powers further erodes our security at home. The carpet-baggers and grifters currently occupying the halls of power in theis nation are its greatest threat.

If the U.S. cut the budget deficit, thus reigning in our spending somewhat, wouldn't that cause a shrinkage of the trade deficit which in turn would cause a world wide recession? (although the dollar is going to have to fall sooner or later)

 

[Max Power]

If the U.S. cut the budget deficit, thus reigning in our spending somewhat, wouldn't that cause a shrinkage of the trade deficit which in turn would cause a world wide recession? (although the dollar is going to have to fall sooner or later)

We ran a surplus (kind of)* in the late 90's and it didn't lead to a worldwide recession.

So I seriously doubt that would happen.



*IN actuality, while the federal government did run a surplus (by taking in more money than it spent), we still had to borrow money, because our surplus was not enough money to even cover the interest on the national debt.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We ran a surplus (kind of)* in the late 90's and it didn't lead to a worldwide recession.

So I seriously doubt that would happen.



*IN actuality, while the federal government did run a surplus (by taking in more money than it spent), we still had to borrow money, because our surplus was not enough money to even cover the interest on the national debt.

You're right, the budget deficit went temporarily into the black at the same time there was a huge blowout of the trade deficit. So I guess we can cross off government frugality as something that will head off recession.

 

[Max Power]

You're right, the budget deficit went temporarily into the black at the same time there was a huge blowout of the trade deficit. So I guess we can cross off government frugality as something that will head off recession.

Coincidence? Or correlation?

One thing that is certain is that ALL government taxes and subsidies are inherently inefficient, so I wouldn't cross it off the list just yet.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Wouldn't a worldwide recession protect our economy from being taken over by a large growing economy like China?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Coincidence? Or correlation?.

Well, I'd suspect correlation due to the economic growth. In other words, the budget profited from booming business and the subsequent taxation.

One thing that is certain is that ALL government taxes and subsidies are inherently inefficient, so I wouldn't cross it off the list just yet.

I still don't see how paring the budget would affect the trade deficit in any meaningful way.

During recessions governement will typically increase its spending.