Hey, what do you know? Bush math sucks. I'd love to hear from those that say we should run deficits during bad times and make it up during good times. Are we anticipating 10 years of recession? http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/budget.deficits.ap/index.html Massive deficits projected for Bush budget WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's proposed new round of tax cuts and the rest of his budget would produce a string of federal deficits over the coming decade totaling $1.82 trillion, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected on Friday. The bleak forecast, obtained by The Associated Press, could heighten pressure on the Republican-led Congress to shrink the president's tax-cutting plans so lawmakers can produce a budget of their own that charts a course back to eventual balance. Bush has proposed $1.57 trillion in fresh tax reductions through 2013 -- including a $726 billion economic package -- that has drawn opposition from nearly every congressional Democrat and some moderate Republicans. The congressional analysts projected that under Bush's proposed tax and spending plans, there would be deficits of $287 billion this year and $338 billion in 2004. They would then begin a gradual decline to $102 billion by 2013. The largest shortfall ever was $290 billion in 1992. The figures exclude the costs of possible war with Iraq and its aftermath, which analysts and government officials have said could exceed $100 billion. The budget office also said that without any of the tax and spending changes proposed by Bush, there would be deficits of $246 billion this year and $200 billion in 2004. Those figures were about $50 billion worse for each year than forecasts the congressional office made in January, reflecting a continued weakening of federal revenue collections and higher spending that Congress has approved. The new figures accentuated the ever-accelerating nosedive the government's finances have taken since just two years ago, when analysts envisioned a decade's worth of surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion. When Bush released his $2.23 trillion budget for 2004 in February, he projected it would yield deficits totaling $1.08 trillion through 2008. Administration officials said his numbers only extended five years because longer projections tend to be wildly inaccurate, but Democrats said the White House was trying to avoid showing how bad the red ink would be in later years. Democrats have blamed the revival of deficits -- following four years of surpluses under President Clinton -- on Bush's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut that Congress approved in 2001. Republicans blame the faltering economy and an expensive fight against terrorism, saying that dealing with both is more important than balancing the budget. The White House and congressional Republicans also argue that the projected deficits are affordable because they are a small percentage of the country's $10.5 trillion economy. "This demonstrates to me two things," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa. "We need growth in the economy and more spending restraint than the president has shown in his budget." Lawmakers react "Events have borne out our warnings. The president's policies will add trillions to the national debt and saddle American families with a 'debt tax' for decades to come" in the form of higher government borrowing costs, said Rep. John Spratt, D-South Carolina, the budget panel's top Democrat. The budget office's new estimates were released a week before the House and Senate budget committees plan to begin writing separate spending blueprints of their own for the coming year. Friday's numbers amplified how hard it will be for lawmakers to craft budgets that reach balance within 10 years. Nussle said Friday that he will produce a plan that will show balance within 10 years, and his Senate counterpart, Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, has said he wants to do the same. Democrats have said they want to produce budgets of their own that are more fiscally responsible than Bush's, with far smaller tax cuts and more spending for schools, domestic security and other programs. What, by the way, happened to Bush's State of the Union speech that he's not going to leave our problems for future generations to deal with? How exactly is not added $1.8 trillion to the national debt not leaving our problems for the future? What happened to the Republican belief in fiscal responsibility (Contract with America, anyone?)
Speaking of big numbers. What do you think the Value is of the United States land is? Can anyone even comprehend that. What do you think it was valued at when we first landed here?
Doesn't this just show how bad they are at estimating? Hell, in two years they'll probably be estimating more surpluses. I don't see how you can possibly have any idea what the economy will be doing in 10 years. I would like to know what the estimates were in the early 90s about the performance of the economy in the mid-to-late 90s.
We paid around a total 50 million for all the land west to the Mississippi (Lousiana Purchase, Gadsdon Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, Seward's Folly, Northwest Territory purchases from England and Russia (treaty names I forgot). Even with inflation, it's still a great bargain. Why they were bargains is a different matter... Households' Net Worth, Borrowing Up It doesn't count the land we live on, but.... Net worth for U.S. households and non-profit organizations totaled $39.144 trillion in the fourth quarter, up from $38.262 trillion in the third quarter, the Fed said in its quarterly "flow of funds" report. The 2.3 percent advance was the first rise in household wealth since the first quarter of 2002.
Doesn't this just show how bad they are at estimating? Hell, in two years they'll probably be estimating more surpluses. Maybe in 4 years, if we get a Democrat back in charge in 2 years. Yeah - these are just estimates, but they are based on trends. Bush has proposed a total of $3.2 trillion in tax reductions himself ($1.6T in 2001 and another $1.6T now, apparently) -- so that's half the change from the $5 trillion in surplus to $1.8 trillion in new debt right there. That $5 trillion in projected surplus wasn't entirely bad estimates. Besides that, these projections assume decent growth throughout these 10 years. In general, these CBO / OMB budgets are best-case scenarios because that gives the President & Congress more money to play with. When you have $1.8T in debt as the best-case type estimate, that's a problem. Besides which, you completely ignore the fact that we are in a MINOR recession (in fact, last year, we weren't in recession at all), but are projected to have the biggest deficits in history next year. That's not some long-term projection. I can't imagine what would happen if we actually had a deep recession.
Should we raise taxes to pay for this war or will it devastate the economy. In my opinion we should probably pay for the war and then gamble that we'll get a bump after it. Just a wild stab at it tho'. I don't know jack about eco because I'm someone who beleives that social value actually has a value.
So how do they account for the possible increase in revenue as a result of a tax cut in their estimates?
Taxes won't devastate the economy, it will just slow it down a bit. What is much worse in my opinion is inflation and debt, which we may have a problem with in a short amount of time. If there is inflation, then Greenspan will raise interest rates, and the economy will then face bigger problems. It's basically a horrible time to start a war.
So how do they account for the possible increase in revenue as a result of a tax cut in their estimates? These revenue estimates project growth over the coming years - presumably, the growth rates would increase if the tax cuts were effectively designed.
You could probably get a private sweet at the new stadium because you are the new rockets owner, make love to three rocket cheerleaders, watch the rockets beat the Lakers, and have some bbq in your lap at the same time. And just for kicks you could have a Laker cheerleader in your lap too.
