http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html i guess virtual gay sex is more important. -- The federal budget estimate for the fiscal year just completed dropped to $250 billion, congressional estimators said Friday, as the economy continues to fuel impressive tax revenues. The Congressional Budget Office's latest estimate is $10 billion below CBO predictions issued in August and well below a July White House prediction of $296 billion. The improving deficit picture _ Bush predicted a $423 billion deficit in his February budget _ has been driven by better-than-expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits, CBO said.
Sadly even though it is a step in the right direction it is still one of the larest deficits in history, and even the Bush administration is predicting to get worse next year.
When was the last time the estimation was accurate? When was the last time or ever that Bush's prediction was even close to accurate?
Am I the only one that noticed how basso called it "virtual gay sex?" Anyways, it's a healthy cut, too bad that half still leaves us at a quarter trillion. . .
lmao @ "bush predicted" bush also predicted that the iraqies would give us roses and welcome us as some sort of savior.
this seems like good news too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116034633519486238-email.html -- The Worker Rally October 9, 2006; Page A18 The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006. So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here? Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year. The household survey is what is used to determine the unemployment rate, which fell in September to 4.6%, the lowest level in five years. The establishment survey, meanwhile, is used to announce the monthly "new jobs" numbers. Every year the Labor Department revises its job estimates from the previous year, in essence reconciling the figures from the two surveys, and the missing 810,000 jobs was the result through March 2006. Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001 and which economist Brian Wesbury points out is higher than the 3.3% average annual wage growth of the last 25 years. Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction. This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage. Never underestimate the ways that Washington politicians can do economic harm.
I was curious about that too. I know that they always ask for supplementals rather than include many of the costs for that war in the budget.
A cover up of criminal acts within a party's power structure is the story. Foley is a sad man with a personal problem, the Republican Party's conspiracy to maintain power is corruption at the highest levels. The numbers in the press release are manipulated propaganda. They never tell the story of monies taken form social security or the federal employees pension funds that will have to be paid back by your children. The new jobs numbers never looks at average hourly wage and benefits. What good are 62,000 jobs that pay $5.75 and hour for under 40 hours where there are no insurance or retirement benefits?
did you think Clinton's impeachment was really only about about whether he cheated on his wife or not, too?
I'm going to call bull**** on this one. The key problem with these numbers is that they originiate from the household survey which economists consistently rank as worse of the two major surveys. In fact, in 2001 when we were seeing unemployment spike, president bush pushed greenspan to start using the household survey because it actually showed a rise in jobs. The reason for that rise and the rise in this case comes from the definitions of employment between the household survey and the employee survey run by the Bureau of Labor statistics. The Household survey surveys households for their employment and generally counts many unemployed workers as "self-employed" meaning that they dont figure into the actually unemployment numbers. When we were seeing 6 digit declines in jobs during 2001, the household survey was showing 7 digit rises in employment. The other survey, the CES survey, surveys employers for growth which is generally regarded as much more accurate. Also, in terms of "cutting the deficit," its no secret that the Office of Budget and Management inflated initial budget deficit projections, making it much easier to "cut it in half." And Bush has been saying that he has or will cut the deficit in half for years now, so I honestly don't take what he or his administration says very seriously anymore. The OBM and the White House have consistently manipulated economic data and figures for poliitical purposes. That's not to say Clinton didn't do that either. (Most of his surpluses included social security surpluses in them, so in reality he basically broke even, rather than having these large surpluses) but what Bush has done is much greater than anything Clinton did.
I guess finding any little miniscule piece of good news - of giving a president credit by cutting in half the deficit he orignianlly created but that's expected to expand dramatically in future years - as a last grasp to defend a grossfully corrupt and incompetant party is more important to you then reality. Seriously...the republican party is in tormoil....Republicans are fighting Republicans...you aren't no longer going against liberals, you are now going against moderates in your own party. Your great president is at 33%. One-third of people in this country are behind the man and congress is even worse. Don't you think as a democracy that speaks volumes? Isn't that more important then anything else?
Contestant #1: Alex, I'll take "Failed Republican PR Strategies" for $300. Trebek: This a Visual Daily Double! Contestant #1: Everything Alex! Trebek: OK, for $3700... When trying to change the subject off of their moral and governing malfeasance, what do Republicans do with these?
my friend has always suspected that his wife was having an affair with a man he was really relieved when he got home and see his wife with a midget
