Bush swells his chest and brags that the deficit will only be 296 billion

[TGS]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

And for those of you who say "this is not a reliable source", the numbers are taken directly from the horse's mouth HERE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf



Clinton's fault? Give me a break !!

Strange there's some sort of decline in the positive balance sheet post 2000. Also looking closer there hasn't been a balanced budget prior to Clinton since 1969. :Q

Edit: Those GDP numbers are pretty sobering when you look at the growth post 2000 as well.

 

[Stunt]

No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

Different country?s deficit (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%.

This new value would bring the US to -2.17%

Not to mention the Debt to GDP levels:
Canada has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US?s 65%, EU?s 76%, and Japan?s 164%.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

Different country?s deficit (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%.

This new value would bring the US to -2.17%

Not to mention the Debt to GDP levels:
Canada has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US?s 65%, EU?s 76%, and Japan?s 164%.

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

In other words absolute Bullsh!t.

Nice try but totally bunk, not surprised.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

Different country?s deficit (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%.

This new value would bring the US to -2.17%

Not to mention the Debt to GDP levels:
Canada has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US?s 65%, EU?s 76%, and Japan?s 164%.

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

In other words absolute Bullsh!t.

Nice try but totally bunk, not surprised.

What benchmark do you use Dave?
This is a completely relevant way...if not the only way to compare country's deficits.

 

[BBond]

First, Clinton handed the chimp a surplus. The chimp created the deficit.

Second, the numbers STILL don't include the cost of the chimp's fatal, failed escapade in Iraq.

Third, the chimp's cheerleaders are always first to point out that the president doesn't control the economy. Why the celebrating now? As usual, the chimp and his cheerleaders only try to take credit when they think things are improving. They never admit liability when things are going badly, and under the chimp's hellish rule they are usually going badly.

Fourth, it's all bullsh!t anyway because the chimp's own government analysis disproves his bullsh!t theory that his tax cuts to his rich contributors helped with any of this economic debacle that bush is responsible for.

A SMOKING GUN: PRESIDENT?S CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES REFUTED BY ADMINISTRATION?S OWN ANALYSIS

By James Horney

In remarks on July 11 touting revised deficit projections in the Mid-Session Review of the Budget, President Bush once again claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves:

?Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit?.Today?s numbers show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring. That?s what has happened.?[1]

These remarks mirror previous statements by the President, the Vice-President, and key Congressional leaders that the increase in revenues in 2005 and the increase now projected for 2006 prove that tax cuts ?pay for themselves? ? that the economy expands so much as a result of tax cuts that it produces the same level of revenue as it would have without the tax cuts.[2]

Economists and budget analysts outside of the administration have explained that these claims are not supported by data or economic theory.[3] Now a Department of Treasury analysis presented in the Mid-Session Review itself confirms what outside experts have consistently said ? tax cuts do not come remotely close to paying for themselves.[4]

The Treasury analysis concludes that making the President?s tax cuts permanent ? and paying for the tax cuts with future reductions in spending ? may ultimately increase the level of economic output (national income) in the long run by as much as 0.7 percent. (An increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent ? the Treasury?s best-case scenario ? in 20 years would represent an increase of about 4/100ths of one percentage point in the annual growth rate of the economy.)

Even if an increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent ultimately were to result from making the tax cuts permanent (the Treasury analysis concedes that the effect would be much smaller if the tax cuts are not paid for by cuts in spending[5]), and were to occur much sooner than Treasury seems to assume (it is not clear what the Treasury means by long-run, but it probably is considerably more than 10 years), the effect of this assumed additional economic growth would be to offset only a tiny fraction of the cost of the President?s tax cuts. For instance, a 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion.[6] If new revenues equaled as much as 20 percent of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury?s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion. That amount represents less than 10 percent of the $314 billion that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates extending the tax cuts will reduce revenues in 2016 (not counting the effects of extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief).

Thus, even if the Treasury?s most optimistic assumptions are accepted (and the dynamic effect is assumed to happen much more quickly than even Treasury seems to assume), the cost of the tax cuts in 2016 ? taking into account ?dynamic? effects ? would still be more than 90 percent of the cost of the tax cuts under the standard cost estimates.

End Notes:

[1] Remarks by the President on the Mid-Session Review, July 11, 2006: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060711-1.html

[2] See Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine, ?Claim that Tax Cuts ?Pay for Themselves? is Too Good to be True: Data Show No ?Free Lunch? Here,? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, revised June 14, 2006.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ?A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President?s Tax Relief,? box on pages 3-4 of the Mid-Session Review of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007.

[5] Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, have concluded that cutting taxes without paying for the cuts may actually reduce output over the long term. See ?Claim that Tax Cuts ?Pay for Themselves? is Too Good to be True.?

[6] The Administration?s projections of the economy only extend through 2011.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

Different country?s deficit (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%.

This new value would bring the US to -2.17%

Not to mention the Debt to GDP levels:
Canada has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US?s 65%, EU?s 76%, and Japan?s 164%.

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

In other words absolute Bullsh!t.

Nice try but totally bunk, not surprised.

What benchmark do you use Dave?
This is a completely relevant way...if not the only way to compare country's deficits.

Another duck and run by Dave...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Clue -- It isn't. It's just lower than their previous, over-inflated estimate of what they TOLD US it would be at this point.

 

[BBond]

BTW, don't forget to add this small sum into that total...

Administration To Request Another $110 Billion For Iraq Next Year

Plus the other $300 billion or so over the last three years that they aren't adding into that total either.

:roll:

"ONLY $296 BILLION" my a$$.

Yesterday, the White House released its FY2007 mid-session budget review with great fanfare, celebrating its projection that the deficit will be nearly $300 billion this year.

Buried within the mid-session review, the White House reveals that it will ask Congress for another $110 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year. From the document:

In 2007, to fund the anticipated additional costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Mid-Session Review assumes an additional $60 billion in budget authority will be needed later in the fiscal year, for a total allowance of $110 billion. This update also provides a $50 billion allowance for a portion of additional costs anticipated in 2008 for the Global War on Terror.

So far, the U.S. government has allocated $311 billion total to support U.S. stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

If you add together the amounts already allocated, plus the appropriations expected to be approved this year ($116 billion) and next year, the total spending for Iraq will soon exceed $400 billion.

 

[Pens1566]

It's more like $500 billion so far, but who's counting??? It's Clinton's fault.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's more like $500 billion so far, but who's counting??? It's Clinton's fault.

And estimates of the full cost of bush's little war profiteering scheme run as high as $1 to $2 TRILLION!

But you're right, why should bush care? It's Clinton's fault.

:roll:

 

[Pens1566]

Deficits don't matter either.

Just getting all the excuses out there so the apologists have no ammo.

 

[randym431]

I guess they all got their talking points synchronized.

Yep! Thats how they work. Lie-repeat. lie-repeat. lie-repeat.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

"you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda" dumbya.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not bad, considering the inheritance of Clinton's recession

Please explain why you think a 423 billion deficit trumps a 296 billion deficit.

Please explain how nearly 7 years later everything is still Clinton's fault.

There is nothing to explain, The simple fact of the matter it is Clintons fault. nothing more nothing less!!

Clinton had a strong economy, ran surpluses and he nailed an intern.

Bush has a weaker economy, HUGE decifits and he nailed the entire world.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
"you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda" dumbya.

his statement points out the sickening fact that dumbya$$ really doesn't know the difference between "truth" and propaganda. he's worse that immoral, he's amoral. bush just doesn't have a clue about right, wrong, lies, truth, good, or evil. he's just a silly rich kid who's been given the steering wheel and he's driving us all off a cliff.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
No matter how the deficit got to where it is...lower is better.
Coming in under expectation is a huge accomplishment.

Not to mention the US has a significantly lower deficit relative to other first world nations now.

Really?

Have a link for this?

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

Different country?s deficit (-) and surplus (+) relative to their productivity; Canada +0.7%, US -2.7%, UK -3.5%, France -4.3%, Germany -4.2%, Italy -3.1%, Japan -9.3%.

This new value would bring the US to -2.17%

Not to mention the Debt to GDP levels:
Canada has a debt to gdp ratio of 67%, compared to the US?s 65%, EU?s 76%, and Japan?s 164%.

Considering the difference in population and economies...I represented the deficits as a percentage GDP. (common practice by economists and creditors)

In other words absolute Bullsh!t.

Nice try but totally bunk, not surprised.

What benchmark do you use Dave?
This is a completely relevant way...if not the only way to compare country's deficits.

Another duck and run by Dave...

Again...Dave is unable to back up his nonsense.
Dishes out the trolls and runs away...get a life...