Fed defict lowest in four years.....

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
I think it shows that a lot of the President's economic plan is working. However, we also should keep in mind that right before he came into office, we were running a budget surplus.

Let's cut taxes incrementally, cut spending drastically, and get to where we need to be. I think President Bush is closer to right than he is to wrong, but let's inch closer to the right way :beer:
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I think it shows that a lot of the President's economic plan is working. However, we also should keep in mind that right before he came into office, we were running a budget surplus.

Let's cut taxes incrementally, cut spending drastically, and get to where we need to be. I think President Bush is closer to right than he is to wrong, but let's inch closer to the right way :beer:


We were also in a recession. The rise in the market was on paper only. After all Enron type problems grew under Bill. Without the Bush tax cuts the economy would be much worse off

The libs and Bush haters are in a foul mood these days. Given the great economic news I would not expect them to be any other way

When libs rant how miserable the economy is I ask them if they can say Dow 12,000
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
How does the liberal media treat good economic news? they ignore it!


Sound of Silence: Pro-Tax Media Caught Flat-footed by Shrinking Deficit
Posted by Rich Noyes on October 12, 2006 - 14:38.
Oops. Back in 2004, then-ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran argued President Bush’s tax cuts were building debt, not prosperity: “Most experts say that making those tax cuts permanent would cause gigantic deficits virtually as far as the eye can see.” Early last year, CBS’s Bob Schieffer suggested it would be impossible for the federal budget deficit to be cut in half before 2009 without raising taxes: “The government has just got to find some money to finance these programs.”

Well, the tax cuts haven’t been repealed, and there have been no big new tax increases. But yesterday the White House announced that final tallies for the federal government’s fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, the budget deficit had shrunk from $413 billion two years ago to $248 billion. The federal government collected $2.407 trillion in taxes in FY2006, $122 billion more than originally forecast back in February.

Memo to the media: Tax revenues increased because of strong economic activity, not an increase in tax rates (as liberal pundits claimed was necessary).

Last night, ABC and CBS skipped this good economic and budget news. NBC’s Brian Williams held himself to a 30-second story that aired 22 minutes into Wednesday’s Nightly News: “The federal government today released its official budget figures for the fiscal year just ended, and the good news is the deficit fell to its lowest point in four years. It's also the bad news, $248 billion higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals helped the bottom line this year. The problem is next year the deficit is expected to rise again, and long term, the budget will be strained by the retirement of those 78 million American Baby Boomers.”

What Williams did not say is that the Boomers’ retirement will “strain” the budget because of the array of liberally-inspired social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that tax American workers to pay ever-increasing benefits to (mostly) non-workers. And, as the MRC's Ken Shepherd caught, Williams did not repeat his allegation from July that the deficit success was obtained by cooking the budgetary books.

The good budget news flies in the face of what liberal journalists have been telling viewers for the last couple of years. Last month, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos got in the face of conservative Stephen Laffey, who was challenging liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Republican primary. Stephanopoulos told Laffey that his “No taxes” pledge was irresponsible: “I mean, if the deficit continued to grow, it’s not responsible to say you’re never going to raise taxes....Ronald Reagan also increased taxes....So it’s, ‘Read my lips,’ you’re never going to vote to raise taxes?”

Back in May on Face the Nation, CBS’s Bob Schieffer fretted that “the ballooning deficit” was being obscured because of “silly issues” like making English the official language of the United States. At the time, the deficit was tens of billions of dollars lower than it was in 2005.

Last October, NPR’s Nina Totenberg ridiculed the idea of tax cuts given the government’s fiscal “mess.” She told the other journalists gathered for the Inside Washington roundtable that Democrats could easily use the issue of tax cuts to defeat Republicans: “One of the other things is you say, ‘Look, we’re in this mess fiscally and they want to increase the tax cuts for the most wealthy people in the United States, the top one half of one percent would get a hundred thousand dollars, people who make over a million dollars,’ or something like that.”

The most glaringly wrong prediction came from CBS’s Bob Schieffer on the February 8, 2005 Early Show. Co-host Hannah Storm asked Schieffer whether he thought President Bush could keep his 2004 campaign promise to halve the deficit from its predicted $520 billion within the next four years: “I want to ask you about the deficit because the President has pledged to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office in 2009. Is he going to be able to realistically achieve that goal without raising taxes?”

Schieffer said no. “I frankly don’t think so. I think in the end this President will raise taxes before his term is out, just like Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he enacted those enormous tax cuts at the beginning of his program. The government has just got to find some money to finance these programs.”

Today’s Early Show was silent on the new and improved budget numbers.

Schieffer made that prediction six months before Hurricane Katrina unexpectedly added to the federal government’s expenses, yet the Bush administration was able to beat the target by two years, without a major tax increase. Once again, journalists have failed to appreciate the power of lower tax rates to stimulate economic growth, which not only adds to the wealth of the private sector, but ends up returning more revenue to liberals’ cherished government.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8285
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
The plan might be working. It is hard to properly conclude what tax rate is the best when the government is spending all of this money. When this much is being spent, there is supposed to be increased economic activity, but it is tough to say that we're at the right tax rate without changing the tax rate and measuring your point on the Laffer curve. Tax rate should always be increasing, especially if the government is spending a lot to stimulate the economy, but you can't really say the government is being successful until its income has actually reached its level of spending.

Basically wars often screw up ideal economic conditions. I think the best thing we could have is a small government with a low tax rate, but when you're at war the government is not being a small government, and that ideal situation is not really an option.

In the end, I wouldn't declare it a good economic job (for either Dems or Reps) until the administration has low taxes and a balanced budget.
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
We were also in a recession. The rise in the market was on paper only. After all Enron type problems grew under Bill. Without the Bush tax cuts the economy would be much worse off

The libs and Bush haters are in a foul mood these days. Given the great economic news I would not expect them to be any other way

When libs rant how miserable the economy is I ask them if they can say Dow 12,000
Let's all say this together...

We were not in a recession in 2000.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Let's all say this together...

We were not in a recession in 2000.
Yeah, we were:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM

The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.

The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.

The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001...
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200408040850.asp

August 04, 2004, 8:50 a.m.
A Recession to Remember
Business-investment hemorrhaged in 2000-01 — don’t forget it.

It was Santayana who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope Alan Greenspan is in a remembering frame of mind.

The Commerce Department has revised data for gross domestic product, sparking a minor debate as to whether a recession actually occurred in 2001. Either way, some now argue, if there was a recession, it was one of the mildest on record.

That’s not only utter nonsense, it shows a sad lack of short-term memory.

There was a recession in 2000-01 and it was deep. But you have to look behind the headline real GDP numbers to understand it. When you do that, you find that a very unusual set of events were at work four years ago. Events worth remembering today.

Consumer spending never once declined in the recession of 2000-01. This is because middle-class income actually increased by nearly 5 percent between 2000 and 2002, according to the latest IRS statistics. This fact runs completely counter to the Kerry-Edwards argument about a “middle-class squeeze.”

Still, overall individual income declined 5 percent during this period. Why? Upper-end income suffered mightily. The top tax brackets lost about 28 percent of their income, on average, largely from the stock market crash and the fall in high-paying jobs. Twelve percent of the folks who fought their way above $200,000 a year slipped below that level in 2002.

At the rarified income level of $10 million or more, those with the highest propensity to save and invest lost a stunning 63 percent of their income during 2000-02. Total capital-gains income fell by 29 percent, and dividend income dropped 17 percent. When Bill Clinton recently told the Democrats in Boston that top tax-rate payers don’t need the extra money, he was sorely uninformed.

It was the investment-side of the economy that collapsed in 2000-02. But without investment funding, economic growth was null and void. For example, capital-goods investment (equipment and software) fell in eight of ten quarters between mid-2000 and the end of 2002, with six of those declines coming consecutively. Industrial production declined for six straight quarters. When measured against year-ago levels, after-tax corporate profits declined in seven straight quarters.

Surely, a 78 percent drop in the Nasdaq and a near 40 percent fall in the broader stock indexes deserve the lion’s share of blame for this business-investment recession. In the new economy, the stock market is essential to the investment-funding of business and the income- and wealth-creating activities of the 50 percent of the adult population called the investor class. When the market cost of capital rises sharply, as it did in 2000-02, investment activity hemorrhages.

This is why President Bush’s 2003 across-the-board tax plan — aimed especially at risk-taking investors (capital gains and dividends) — was brilliantly crafted. Since its passage, the stock market and the economy have emerged from a long slumber. Should the Kerry Democrats succeed in repealing Bush’s investment tax incentives, the economy will rapidly retreat. ...
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
You claim that liberals don't understand Econ 101, but what does that say about you?

Nothing in those articles states flat out, unquestionably, that we were in a recession in 2000. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. There are some progressive economists who want to play with this definition, but if we are talking traditional Econ 101 (as RSR continues to do in other posts), this is the definition of a recession.

Those articles are attempting to change the definition of a recession to a number of different definitions; from the quarters being nonconsecutive to measuring only investment spending, these new definitions do not hold weight.

Talk to me when you've done graduate studdies in economics. This is the way it works, not the way others tell you it works.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
You claim that liberals don't understand Econ 101, but what does that say about you?

Nothing in those articles states flat out, unquestionably, that we were in a recession in 2000. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. There are some progressive economists who want to play with this definition, but if we are talking traditional Econ 101 (as RSR continues to do in other posts), this is the definition of a recession.

Those articles are attempting to change the definition of a recession to a number of different definitions; from the quarters being nonconsecutive to measuring only investment spending, these new definitions do not hold weight.

Talk to me when you've done graduate studdies in economics. This is the way it works, not the way others tell you it works.
If the above was a response to my posting of two articles, pray tell where I said 'liberals' don't understand Econ 101 or even that I truly understand economics? I think you are painting with too broad a brush. :coffee3:
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
If the above was a response to my posting of two articles, pray tell where I said 'liberals' don't understand Econ 101 or even that I truly understand economics? I think you are painting with too broad a brush. :coffee3:
I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.

I was referring to RSR. People shouldn't listen to what you say anymore.
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.

I was referring to RSR. People shouldn't listen to what you say anymore.
Jeez. And people think I'm an asshole.

You could give lessons.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.

I was referring to RSR. People shouldn't listen to what you say anymore.
Your assessment may be correct, however at least people can read, understand, and agree/disagree, since I bother to use quotes that make it clear.
 

gonegolfin

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
412
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Location
Austin, TX
Yeah, we were:
[/url]
Actually, we still are ... if you look at statistics that are not manipulated by the Federal Government. I suggest you check out www.shadowstats.com. I actually have a subscription and use it for my macroeconomic data and in making investment decisions.

According to John Williams, US GDP has been slightly negative since Q4 '04 (official reported GDP was 3.4%). Q2 of '06 was -0.99% (official reported GDP was 3.51%). The recession began in Q4 '00 with a -0.04% and ran for 14 quarters, ending in Q4 '04 (thanks to an extremely loose monetary policy). The lowest GDP number in that time period according to Williams was -3.25%. The largest disparity between Williams' GDP calculation and the official GDP during this period was 4.50% in Q2 '06. Let me be clear that these GDP numbers shenanigans have been taking place for a couple of decades. But the cheating does seem to be getting worse as time goes on.

It is also interesting to note that the US has been really goosing the money supply since the mid 90's ... averaging over 11% for 2001 and 2002. We are back up in the 9% range again over the last year.

Yes, it is amazing to think that with the needed tax cuts and an extremely loose monetary policy (and loose credit) that has been goosing the M3 money supply by an average of over 8% this decade, that we would have negative GDP growth (albeit slightly negative). But this is what happens when you have out of control spending, years of debt building up, a much larger deficit than what is being admitted, and record trade deficit and current account deficit numbers. Just imagine what is going to happen when we can no longer sway foreigners into picking up their share of financing $3.5 billion of debt per day. And no liberals, the answer is not more taxes.

Brian (A conservative wondering if there are any left)
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
Actually, we still are ... if you look at statistics that are not manipulated by the Federal Government. I suggest you check out www.shadowstats.com. I actually have a subscription and use it for my macroeconomic data and in making investment decisions.

According to John Williams, US GDP has been slightly negative since Q4 '04 (official reported GDP was 3.4%). Q2 of '06 was -0.99% (official reported GDP was 3.51%). The recession began in Q4 '00 with a -0.04% and ran for 14 quarters, ending in Q4 '04 (thanks to an extremely loose monetary policy). The lowest GDP number in that time period according to Williams was -3.25%. The largest disparity between Williams' GDP calculation and the official GDP during this period was 4.50% in Q2 '06. Let me be clear that these GDP numbers shenanigans have been taking place for a couple of decades. But the cheating does seem to be getting worse as time goes on.

It is also interesting to note that the US has been really goosing the money supply since the mid 90's ... averaging over 11% for 2001 and 2002. We are back up in the 9% range again over the last year.

Yes, it is amazing to think that with the needed tax cuts and an extremely loose monetary policy (and loose credit) that has been goosing the M3 money supply by an average of over 8% this decade, that we would have negative GDP growth (albeit slightly negative). But this is what happens when you have out of control spending, years of debt building up, a much larger deficit than what is being admitted, and record trade deficit and current account deficit numbers. Just imagine what is going to happen when we can no longer sway foreigners into picking up their share of financing $3.5 billion of debt per day. And no liberals, the answer is not more taxes.

Brian (A conservative wondering if there are any left)
Sad but true.
 

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
Bush has done a decent job with National Security and a few other issues, but the National Debt is not one of them. When Bush took office the National Debt was $5.6 trillion. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521 Now it is almost 8.6 trillion! http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I am a conservative. I vote Republican. But by any measure, Bush's deficit spending performance has been very poor. During his time in office, the Feds have overspent by an average of $500 billion per year. What's the old saying? "A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." When Lyndon Johnson refused to actually pay for the Vietnam War and ran large deficits instead, the result was "stagflation," inflation, and ultimately recession. From what I have read, inflation got so bad during Nixon's term after Johnson that he even tried price controls. We cannot overspend by the magnitude allowed by Bush and not pay for it big time somewhere down the road. There is no free lunch, we should know that by now.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Bush has done a decent job with National Security and a few other issues, but the National Debt is not one of them. When Bush took office the National Debt was $5.6 trillion. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521 Now it is almost 8.6 trillion! http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I am a conservative. I vote Republican. But by any measure, Bush's deficit spending performance has been very poor. During his time in office, the Feds have overspent by an average of $500 billion per year. What's the old saying? "A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." When Lyndon Johnson refused to actually pay for the Vietnam War and ran large deficits instead, the result was "stagflation," inflation, and ultimately recession. From what I have read, inflation got so bad during Nixon's term after Johnson that he even tried price controls. We cannot overspend by the magnitude allowed by Bush and not pay for it big time somewhere down the road. There is no free lunch, we should know that by now.
In fairness, Bush really didn't run as a conservative, rather as a 'compassionate conservative', we interpreted that in our own way. Now we know. :coffee3: Problem for him was 9/11, that really caused a huge problem economically, not to mention emotionally. While he dealt initially better than I would have hoped, the 'compassionate conservative' seems to be progressive writ large + war and ensuing expenditures. There's the 3 trillion more.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,493
Reaction score
16,384
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
In fairness, Bush really didn't run as a conservative, rather as a 'compassionate conservative', we interpreted that in our own way. Now we know. :coffee3: Problem for him was 9/11, that really caused a huge problem economically, not to mention emotionally. While he dealt initially better than I would have hoped, the 'compassionate conservative' seems to be progressive writ large + war and ensuing expenditures. There's the 3 trillion more.
Bush ran up the debt on Iraq and with tax cuts. As far as I've been able to ascertain, he is the ONLY leader in history... not just in U.S. history... who has cut taxes in wartime. He also signed into law huge tax benefits for oil companies and companies who move offshore. China now owns our debt and our trade deficit is a shame.

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", but he isn't one. A compassionate conservative wouldn't be signing off on things like cutting student loans and not allowing medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices for the elderly.

So... what about him do you see as "compassionate"?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Over The First Half Of This Year, Our Economy Grew At A Strong 4.1 Percent Annual Rate Faster Than Any Other Major Industrialized Country.
Nominal Wage Growth Has Been 4.1 Percent So Far This Year. This is better or comparable to its 1990's peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation.
Real After-Tax Income Has Risen 15.0 Percent Since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.
Productivity Has Grown A Strong 2.5 Percent Over The Past Four Quarters, Well Ahead Of Average Productivity Growth In The Last Three Decades. Strong productivity growth helps lead to GDP growth, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.
Gas Prices Have Fallen 74 Cents Nationwide Since Early August.
Employment Increased In 48 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In August.
The Dow Set Record Highs On Three Consecutive Days This Week.
President Bush's Tax Cuts And Economic Policies Are Helping Sustain Our Economic Growth

The Strength And Continued Growth Of Our Economy Is A Tribute To The American Worker And The President's Tax Cuts. The U.S. economy has proven resilient and responsive, growing 3.7 percent per year over the past three years and adding more than 6.6 million jobs since August 2003, despite numerous challenges including the burst of the dot com bubble, corporate scandals, recession, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the most costly natural disaster in American history.

The President Is Working To Break Our Addiction To Oil And Develop New Sources Of Reliable, Domestic Energy. The President wants to develop technology to create new sources of fuel, build a reliable domestic supply of alternative fuels, and develop new domestic energy resources. The President is also encouraging the research and development of clean-coal technologies and expanding the safe use of clean, affordable nuclear power.

The President's Policies Are Helping Make Health Care More Affordable And Accessible. The President worked with Congress to create the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit and he has implemented reforms to speed cheaper generic drugs to market. The President has proposed expanding Health Savings Accounts and creating Association Health Plans to allow small businesses to band together to buy cheaper insurance.

The Economic Outlook Remains Positive

The President's Tax Cuts Have Helped Our Economy Grow Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Nation. President Bush's tax cuts have put more money in the hands of American workers, families, and businesses. To keep the American economy strong and growing, the President and Republicans in Congress want to make these tax cuts permanent.

Wages Are Growing. Paychecks are rising, but until recently large and unanticipated increases in energy prices consumed much of the wage growth. As gas prices continue to fall, many workers will feel greater benefits from rising real wages.

The Housing Market Is Slowing Down To A Healthier, More Moderate Rate Of Growth And Is Still Strong Compared To Historical Levels. Housing starts are still at a very high level 1.7 million starts per year is well above the 1.4 million average per year during the 1990s. Homeownership among all Americans, including minorities, is still near record levels.


If this is a bad economy - please give me more!!!!!
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top