New Deficit Report

Stinger · 07-11-07, 09:36 AM

Deficit Falls to $205 Billion

Jul 11 08:52 AM US/Eastern

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. President Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance.
The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year's deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.

And they just continue to fall as revenues continue to increase, yet every Democrat candidate will do exactly what we don't need to do, raise taxes and turn the whole thing around.

Compare the deficit to revenue ratio to prior years and you will see the deficits are historically small and continue to fall. Another 2 years of this trend and we are back in surplus at a lower tax rate than previously.

SFLRN · 07-11-07, 10:11 AM

A surplus is even more likely in the next two years if one assumes that we will be spending significantly less or even moderately less in Iraq (this is not intended as a political or partisan remark but simply an estimate).

jfuh · 07-11-07, 03:19 PM

WE had a surplus in 2000 before Bush's spending spree.

Stinger · 07-11-07, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

WE had a surplus in 2000 before Bush's spending spree.

Before the Clinton recession
Before terrorist attacked our financial and transportation centers and systems
Before we finally went after those who want to kill us

Are you asserting none of those things had anything to do with it?

The left just can't stand it, that tax cuts are working, the economy is strong, revenue and revenue growth is strong and the people get to keep more of their money.

Stinger · 07-11-07, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

A surplus is even more likely in the next two years if one assumes that we will be spending significantly less or even moderately less in Iraq (this is not intended as a political or partisan remark but simply an estimate).

The fact that we survived the effects of 9/11 and then engaged in an expensive war while fighting off the slow down from the Clinton years and are now posed to be in surplus again before anyone could have ever imagined says a lot about the strength of the US economy.

jfuh · 07-11-07, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Before the Clinton recession

Clinton recession? Talk about revisionist history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Before terrorist attacked our financial and transportation centers and systems
Before we finally went after those who want to kill us

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. AQ was and they were not in IRaq. More revisionist history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Are you asserting none of those things had anything to do with it?

I'm stating that you're revising history and denying the fact that had the Bush admin left things alone as they were under Clinton - that being without the tax cut for the rich. There'd still more than likly be a surplus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

The left just can't stand it, that tax cuts are working, the economy is strong, revenue and revenue growth is strong and the people get to keep more of their money.

All you need to do is to compare the starting salary of a college graduate before and after 2000 to see the truth in this so called "strong" economy.
There's a decrease of deficit? Good start however we are still hugely in debt. Had you neocons not fuddled around with Clinton's economic policies we would have been done with this huge national debt by 2015. But no, you had to increase military spending (even before the war) without the balls to cut spending anywhere else.
Regardless of how you revise history kiddo it doesn't change the facts.

jfuh · 07-11-07, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

The fact that we survived the effects of 9/11 and then engaged in an expensive war while fighting off the slow down from the Clinton years and are now posed to be in surplus again before anyone could have ever imagined says a lot about the strength of the US economy.

That the economy survives despite the meddling and ridiculous spending of this administration proves how solid the economy is.
But the economy doesn't have much to do with the deficit that the formerlly GOP controlled congress and bush administration ran up.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 07-11-07, 09:25 PM

Funny, you want to give

Bush

CREDIT for cutting his OWN deficit???

Is it time for you Cons to

yet??? 'NO'!!! Get real!
Are our Troops out of harms way yet?

Thats what is IMPORTANT now!
~~~
BUSH lowers his OWN deficit while our Troops are dying daily and Bushs approval rate is the LOWEST of any President to date!
Thats 'GOOD' news???
~~~
Ok, I understand that you Cons have to push for Bush but its just too late.
~~~
How do you spell 'NO ONE WANTS BUSH ANYMORE'.
~~~
Aren't these SMILIES great! They fit just where the should fit!

Stinger · 07-11-07, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Clinton recession? Talk about revisionist history.

Recession, slowdown, I don't care what you call it, it start in his term not Bush's and Bush did exactly what he should have done to offset it.

Quote:

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.

So what?

Quote:

AQ was and they were not in IRaq.

They were everywhere so what, we still had a war to fight.

Quote:

I'm stating that you're revising history and denying the fact that had the Bush admin left things alone as they were under Clinton - that being without the tax cut for the rich.

Which would have meant a longer slowdown and even worse economic reprocussions from 9/11 and the WoT.

Quote:

There'd still more than likly be a surplus.

The surplus was already gone when Bush took office, we were in negative growth and to have that along with what happened after 9/11 and done what Clinton liked to do, raise taxes would have been shear folly.

Bush did the right thing and fortuniately BEFORE 9/11 happened.

Quote:

All you need to do is to compare the starting salary of a college graduate before and after 2000 to see the truth in this so called "strong" economy.

as if that is the ONLY measure. What silly argument you make.

Quote:

There's a decrease of deficit?

Yes because we have a strong economy, people are working, people are making money and paying taxes at lower rates.

Quote:

Good start however we are still hugely in debt.

on you guys just can't stand it can you, yes and we are doing EXACTLY what we should be doing to address it and the Dems want to reverse course.

Don't you think a good path to erasing the debt is to END THE DEFICITS!!!!!
Geez

Quote:

Had you neocons not fuddled around with Clinton's economic policies

Clinton had no economic policies, he was dragged kicking and screaming to budget cuts and tax decreases. He fought the measures that produced the surplus. Talk about revisionist history.

Quote:

we would have been done with this huge national debt by 2015.

By Clinton's own estimates the deficits would be higher now.

Quote:

But no, you had to increase military spending (even before the war) without the balls to cut spending anywhere else.

Bush first budget didn't go into effect until after 9/11 when of course military spending was going to go up. So now go back to my OP, even with all that we have a strong economy with surplus in sight if we just keep the Dems impotent when it comes to economic policy.

Quote:

Regardless of how you revise history kiddo it doesn't change the facts.

Regardless of you fictional statements, the economy and the tax cuts are working, you can try and denied it and try to find something ANYTHING, to complain about, but Bush's economic measures were correct and are working.

jfuh · 07-11-07, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Recession, slowdown, I don't care what you call it, it start in his term not Bush's and Bush did exactly what he should have done to offset it.

So what?

They were everywhere so what, we still had a war to fight.

Which would have meant a longer slowdown and even worse economic reprocussions from 9/11 and the WoT.

The surplus was already gone when Bush took office, we were in negative growth and to have that along with what happened after 9/11 and done what Clinton liked to do, raise taxes would have been shear folly.

Bush did the right thing and fortuniately BEFORE 9/11 happened.

as if that is the ONLY measure. What silly argument you make.

Yes because we have a strong economy, people are working, people are making money and paying taxes at lower rates.

on you guys just can't stand it can you, yes and we are doing EXACTLY what we should be doing to address it and the Dems want to reverse course.

Don't you think a good path to erasing the debt is to END THE DEFICITS!!!!!
Geez

Clinton had no economic policies, he was dragged kicking and screaming to budget cuts and tax decreases. He fought the measures that produced the surplus. Talk about revisionist history.

By Clinton's own estimates the deficits would be higher now.

Bush first budget didn't go into effect until after 9/11 when of course military spending was going to go up. So now go back to my OP, even with all that we have a strong economy with surplus in sight if we just keep the Dems impotent when it comes to economic policy.

Regardless of you fictional statements, the economy and the tax cuts are working, you can try and denied it and try to find something ANYTHING, to complain about, but Bush's economic measures were correct and are working.

No wonder you continually defend this incompetent administration - you're utterly oblivious.
Not a single inkling of truth nor any source to back up your falsifications. All we have here are the ramblings of a partisan bigot.