Bush Touts Latest Deficit Figures

[jdobbin]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/bud...t.ap/index.html

That's still a huge number with no end in sight.

[Shady]

That's still a huge number with no end in sight

Nonsense. It's actually not that large of a deficit when compared to GDP. The deficits a couple years ago, and the deficits in the 90's and 80's were much larger. Also, if you've noticed, it keeps getting smaller, and that's with the Iraq war still going, and with a President without a line-item veto.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Its sort of Bush League Economics isn't it? I mean they are talking about cutting their deficit in half, not even contemplating the debt at this point. Beyond that their solutions have so far been non-existent by their own admission. They cut taxes which didn't reduce their expenditures but did reduce their bottom line in revenue stream calculation. In his own words, I watch the speech, the government used growth to reduce the deficit. Then he dropped the other shoe.....heathcare, medicine, pensions all bad things that the government can't afford anymore.

So I guess I am not in favor of this form of economics.

[jdobbin]

Its sort of Bush League Economics isn't it? I mean they are talking about cutting their deficit in half, not even contemplating the debt at this point. Beyond that their solutions have so far been non-existent by their own admission. They cut taxes which didn't reduce their expenditures but did reduce their bottom line in revenue stream calculation. In his own words, I watch the speech, the government used growth to reduce the deficit. Then he dropped the other shoe.....heathcare, medicine, pensions all bad things that the government can't afford anymore.

So I guess I am not in favor of this form of economics.

For all the criticism of Clinton, he did have the deficit under control.

In Canada, there isn't a political party that advocates deficit spending and thankfully, nearly every province is deficit free or moving far quicker than the U.S. in that direction.

It is by far the worst form of legacy you can leave to the next generation.

[Charles Anthony]

In Canada, there isn't a political party that advocates deficit spending and thankfully, nearly every province is deficit free or moving far quicker than the U.S. in that direction.

To play the devil's advocate, the Canadian federal governments have been off-loading to the provinces and the provinces off-loading to the cities.

In turn, the cities amalgamate (sucking up rural residents to increase the tax-base) which is effectively an off-loading from the big cities to the small towns.

The little guys pay more and still get less. Thank you federalism.

[Shady]

Its sort of Bush League Economics isn't it?

Not exactly sure what you mean.

They cut taxes which didn't reduce their expenditures but did reduce their bottom line in revenue stream

Nonsense. Check revenues. They're up.

For all the criticism of Clinton, he did have the deficit under control

Yes, during his second term, deficits were under control. When you pursuit a strategy of pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity, leaving all the difficult desicions to future Administrations (terrorism, Iraq, social security, immigration, education, dependency on oil) it's amazing how well things can go, short term.

[August1991]

In Canada, there isn't a political party that advocates deficit spending and thankfully, nearly every province is deficit free or moving far quicker than the U.S. in that direction.

It is by far the worst form of legacy you can leave to the next generation.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Or perhaps I should say that balanced government budgets should not be a fetish.

Read this:

Who will do you more good: the guy who wants to cut taxes or the guy who wants to pay down the national debt?

Well, why pay the debt at all? The answer—the one and only answer—is that it has to be paid eventually, and if we don't pay it now, we'll be taxed to pay it later. The more we pay up front, the lower our future taxes. In that sense, a payment on the national debt is a tax cut—it's a cut in tomorrow's taxes instead of today's.

Slate

[jdobbin]

In Canada, there isn't a political party that advocates deficit spending and thankfully, nearly every province is deficit free or moving far quicker than the U.S. in that direction.

To play the devil's advocate, the Canadian federal governments have been off-loading to the provinces and the provinces off-loading to the cities.

In turn, the cities amalgamate (sucking up rural residents to increase the tax-base) which is effectively an off-loading from the big cities to the small towns.

The little guys pay more and still get less. Thank you federalism.

Everyone had to tighten their belts starting with the federal government in Canada. Subsequently, deficits are are under control in a majority of jurisdictions.

As far as off-loading, people can't have it both ways. They can't ask governments to cut the deficit without a major cut in service. Now that the deficit has been cut and revenues are strong, it has allowed the government to cut tax and to increase some spending.

I disagree on rural residents being caught up in metropolitan mergers. There is simply no data to make that claim. Most of the mergers have been of major urban centers.

You can argue the worthiness about those mergers but it isn't a case of rural farms communities being swept into a big area like Toronto or Montreal.

[jdobbin]

In Canada, there isn't a political party that advocates deficit spending and thankfully, nearly every province is deficit free or moving far quicker than the U.S. in that direction.

It is by far the worst form of legacy you can leave to the next generation.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Or perhaps I should say that balanced government budgets should not be a fetish.

Read this:

Who will do you more good: the guy who wants to cut taxes or the guy who wants to pay down the national debt?

Well, why pay the debt at all? The answer—the one and only answer—is that it has to be paid eventually, and if we don't pay it now, we'll be taxed to pay it later. The more we pay up front, the lower our future taxes. In that sense, a payment on the national debt is a tax cut—it's a cut in tomorrow's taxes instead of today's.

Slate

That article is 6 years old. And since then, the deficit has climbed to record levels.

Some new conservative thinking is that deficits are not bad if they involve tax cuts. Phooey. The piper will still have to be paid. And given that U.S. spending is still $300 billion more a year than it should be, I don't see how any Bush's tax cuts will be permanent unless he is planning to slash spending like no other President before him.

[jdobbin]

Its sort of Bush League Economics isn't it?

Not exactly sure what you mean.

They cut taxes which didn't reduce their expenditures but did reduce their bottom line in revenue stream

Nonsense. Check revenues. They're up.

For all the criticism of Clinton, he did have the deficit under control

Yes, during his second term, deficits were under control. When you pursuit a strategy of pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity, leaving all the difficult desicions to future Administrations (terrorism, Iraq, social security, immigration, education, dependency on oil) it's amazing how well things can go, short term.

Revenues are up. But the deficit is still ringing in $300 billion a year.

And Clinton wasn't the only one to share in defeating the deficit. He did so with a Repubican-controlled Congress.

Most studies have shown that despite all of the spending on Iraq and Katrina, the majority of the deficit has come from tax cuts accompanied by not enough service cuts.

[gc1765]

The more we pay up front, the lower our future taxes. In that sense, a payment on the national debt is a tax cut—it's a cut in tomorrow's taxes instead of today's.

Yes, and theoretically tomorrow's taxes will be cut much more if the debt is reduced, since interest is expensive. Look at what happened in the 80's, interest rates were very high and the debt climbed from 200 to 500 billion dollars (under Mulroney) due to high interest rates.

[GostHacked]

Then you have Rumsfeld saying they cannot account for 2.3 TRILLION $US of the defence budget. Not sure if it is for one year or over a period of years, but WOW 2.3 TRILLION??

http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national...ssing_trillions.

How the hell do you loose 2.3 trillion?

Oh wow this looks like it was said on Sept 10 2001.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Bush Leaugue Economics; using economic growth to fund the shortfall created from tax reductions. Works fine as long as there is substantial growth, the plan looks less good if or when growth slows or the economy contracts in recession or depression. Tax reductions have fueled economic growth, true. The growth in the economy has raised revenues for the government, true. On the other side of the street is the increased immigration and increased spending associated with that economic growth. There are two sides to the ledger. On a balance sheet you have incomes and expenses, what the US has done is shine a light one only one side of the books. If you listened to the speech, the other side got a one sentence form of accounting. The government can no longer afford the ongoing expenses with medicare, drug plans and social security.

Bush has a single economic agenda and that is rolling over tax dollars into the military industrial complex. It keeps lots of jobs on the books and produces plenty in profits to the shareholders. You just need someplace to unload your production on. Don't expect any cessation of hostilities in the near future.

[Charles Anthony]

How the hell do you loose 2.3 trillion?

Easy.

You keep the records in the 7th tower of the World Trade Center complex. Then....

Oh wow this looks like it was said on Sept 10 2001.

....you demolish it and hide the evidence when nobody is looking.

In fact, it may also help if:

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

After that, everything just falls into place.

[August1991]

That article is 6 years old. And since then, the deficit has climbed to record levels.

Some new conservative thinking is that deficits are not bad if they involve tax cuts. Phooey. The piper will still have to be paid. And given that U.S. spending is still $300 billion more a year than it should be, I don't see how any Bush's tax cuts will be permanent unless he is planning to slash spending like no other President before him.

Who cares whether the article is six years old, the principle is still sound. Moreover, this is not new "conservative" thinking. The thinking goes back about 200 years.

People think that since a well-run household or business should balance its budget, a well-run government should do the same. This reasoning is false since government is nothing like a household or business. For starters, governments spend other people's money - something no household nor business can do.

Dobbin, if you're interested (and I assume you are since you started this thread), I suggest you read this post on another thread.

[GostHacked]

How the hell do you loose 2.3 trillion?

Easy.

You keep the records in the 7th tower of the World Trade Center complex. Then....

Oh wow this looks like it was said on Sept 10 2001.

....you demolish it and hide the evidence when nobody is looking.

In fact, it may also help if:

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

After that, everything just falls into place.

I started a 9/11 thread some time ago, and my initial thought was it was a big bank heist. Now that throws more evidence in that camp. I watched that clip last week, but did not know when it took place.

[Charles Anthony]

and my initial thought was it was a big bank heist.

I agree. Nothing else makes sense.

[Liam]

Yes, during his second term, deficits were under control. When you pursuit a strategy of pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity, leaving all the difficult desicions to future Administrations (terrorism, Iraq, social security, immigration, education, dependency on oil) it's amazing how well things can go, short term.

Ditto for the impact to future generations with regard to cutting taxes while bloating the size of the federal government.