Surprisingly the budget doesn't include the occupation of Iraq which would put it off the charts. Record surplus to record deficit--the Republicans have no idea how to run a responsible budget. Record Budget Deficit of $480 Billion Predicted Tue August 26, 2003 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday forecast a federal budget deficit of $480 billion in 2004, a record shortfall that could pose problems for President Bush as he seeks re-election. In its bi-annual budget outlook, details of which were obtained by Reuters from congressional sources, the nonpartisan agency also confirmed an earlier prediction of a $401 billion deficit in 2003 and forecast a cumulative budget deficit of $1.4 trillion over the next decade. The report comes as the latest blow in a relentless drumbeat of fiscal bad news that has put the Bush administration on the political defensive. The White House itself last month predicted that federal budget deficits would balloon to $455 billion this year and $475 billion in 2004 -- far above the previous record of $290 billion reached in 1992 -- even without factoring in the mounting cost of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. CBO, however, forecast a smaller $401 billion deficit this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, mainly because it assumes previously earmarked Iraq funds are being spent more slowly. But both Democratic and Republican budget analysts agree the actual 2004 deficit could well come in far higher than the agency's "baseline" estimate -- likely topping $500 billion once likely new Iraq war spending requests are included. Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts for the steep slide in the government's fiscal position since it enjoyed a record surplus of $236 billion in 2000. Republicans argue that the cuts have boosted economic growth and the deficits remain below levels seen in the 1980s as a percentage of the size of the economy.
and forecast a cumulative budget deficit of $1.4 trillion over the next decade. But I thought trickle-down economics was going to make the economy grow so much that the future revenues would pay back the deficits during these bad times?! Or do we expect bad times to last for the next decade?
Grandpa Khan: You idiot son! You paid .50 for a coke! Why I used to pay .05 cents! F.D. Khan: Uh Ok Grandpa, thanks If the economy is larger and there is a deficit, OF COURSE its going to be larger. The economy is much bigger than it was in 1992, let alone the 1980's. Do you honestly believe the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP exceeds that of post WWII or even after the Civil War?? And if you don't look at it as a percentage of GDP then you are a fool. To look at the numbers in that fashion is manipulative and just idiotic. I think I am less intelligent for having read this thread.
Unfortunately Bush is spending money like crazy. That's really dissappointing about this administration. I think the tax cuts are great, though.
Ever read Kenyesian economic theory??? Take a read at it and it might help you to realize what the administration is trying to accomplish.
If the economy is larger and there is a deficit, OF COURSE its going to be larger. The economy is much bigger than it was in 1992, let alone the 1980's. Do you honestly believe the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP exceeds that of post WWII or even after the Civil War?? And if you don't look at it as a percentage of GDP then you are a fool. What's foolish is arguing that this deficit isn't bad because it's not as bad as the worst deficits in our history. THAT is ignorance. What is fact is that our total national debt as a percentage of GDP is on the rise, which means that a larger portion of your taxes every year are being wasted on interest, which means that we'll need higher taxes to cover the same amount of services as a result of this budget disaster. Justify it however you want, but Bush has crippled our debt/deficit situation in a matter of 3 years, increasing spending faster than Clinton (even taking out new defense spending) while simultaneously cutting revenues.
Excellent analogy khan Looks like the point of this thread flew right over your head---Record surplus to record deficit. Oh and I doubt reading this thread made you any more idiotic/less intelligent no need to resort to name calling when you're post makes no sense.
Take a read at it and it might help you to realize what the administration is trying to accomplish. I know what the administration is trying to accomplish: popular short-term benefits at the expense of the long-term. It's quite clear by virtually any economic standard. Keynesian theory is nice, but its just that - a theory. Because reality doesn't work that way. We can't lower taxes during bad times and then raise them during good times. We can't increase spending during bad times and then lower them during good timse - politics gets in the way. Anyone who actually practices policy knows better than to rely on pure theory when you know that the half of the theory will never happen due to political realities.
How large do you think the amount of Money being spent in Iraq is compared to this number??? Iraqi Oil Reserves : 200 Billion barrels = 6 Trillion dollars. Hmmmmmmm.... How much money would that push into the economy if US companies were handling the excavation, refinery and distribution of that oil??
How large do you think the amount of Money being spent in Iraq is compared to this number??? Iraqi Oil Reserves : 200 Billion barrels = 6 Trillion dollars. Hmmmmmmm.... How much money would that push into the economy if US companies were handling the excavation, refinery and distribution of that oil?? And when our profiting from Iraqi oil pisses off the entire Muslim world and makes terrorism ten times worse than it is now, how much money and lives will simple greed cost us? If only the world were as simple as ... "oooh, money. Let me go conquer Iraq and take it all".
This thread has made me stupidererer as well but just for grins, I'll participate. Liberals: 1) To what level of taxation and what level of spending cuts are you willing to go to in order to achieve your ideal budget deficit or surplus? 2) Do you think we need to radically change our tax code and our spending policies for every fluctuation in the business cycle? 3) Do you not agree that tax revenue will be more volatile than government spending, regardless of the level of taxation or spending, thereby creating occasional budget deficits or surpluses? 4) Explain to me how you can put any faith in a 10-year projection of something with as many variables as the entire US economy.
Come on Major. Kennedy and Reagan both were supply siders, and we know from experience that the effect of tax cuts takes years for our economy to feel. Also, if we get the Middle East straightened out over the next decade, the new markets and trade that will be produced will justify our current investment many times over. Look at what happened to the world economy after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Bush put a hell of a lot of faith in his 10 year projections when he was running for office. Or he was telling people what he thought would get him elected. Take your pick. And don't say all of these deficits are because of 9/11, because Bush has had a tax cut bill every year he's been in office... going back to when he was Governor of Texas, in fact, and it's not rocket science to have massive deficits when you have massive taxcuts during a time of massive spending during a crisis. In my opinion, that makes Bush massively stupid or he has another agenda. I think he has another agenda. These deficits are gigantic, no matter how some of you want to spin it, and I really wish I could say that I'm surprised they are occuring. I can't. I'm not surprised at all.
I've outlined this dilemma ad nauseum, it's unfortunate that I have repeat myself several times in order for some of you to comprehend simple concepts. The economy goes up and goes down in cycles. The forces that drive the economy are too numerous to list, but include everything from the weather, to the stock market's endless volatile fluctuations, to international economic activity, to monetary policy, to inventory levels, to new inventions, to you name it. There are millions of participants in the economy, so it stands to reason that there are a huge number of things that impact the economy. Cycles come about as supply and demand adjust themselves in hopes of reaching equilibrium. The late 90's provided us with historic levels of investor demand and consumer demand. As this demand has subsided with the fall of the stock market (the fall started in March 2000 before Bush's term), the economy naturally slowed down. As 9-11 hit, the economy naturally took a step backwards. As corporate scandals (many of the offenses took place in the 90's) shook the economy, the market continued to suffer. Bush and team have reacted. In their cooperative effort with Alan Greenspan, the Administration has promoted a very aggressive monetary policy of cheap money. This has kept the housing market strong and kept interest rates low. The Administration has also done what it could on the fiscal policy front, by lowering the tax burden on Americans. Attacking this tax cut is absurd. First of all, the Democrats were pushing a tax cut of their own, so it seems as though both parties were in favor of tax relief. Second, the worst thing you can do to escape a period of economic downturn is take money out of people's hands. Why on earth would you want to put the clamps on spending when consumer demand is what you are needing? Don't give me the standard flawed argument about a budget deficit causing higher interest rates. That little Rubin-esque fallacy has been successfully debunked *many* times. Through these joint efforts, the economy has righted itself and is back on a growth pace of close to 3% annually. The stock market has reached one-year highs. The Administration has done what it can and the results are *beginning* to show. My questions remain unanswered in my previous post. Raising taxes and cutting spending is the simplest way to economic ruin. Apparently, this is what the liberals want for America. It is easy to repeat the "balance the budget" mantra, but when one looks at how that sausage is made, an astute mind will quickly recognize that type of rigid framework is financially ignorant.
Sweet. FD Khan is on board. Operation neocolonialistic-oilgrab begin! Form of 'interim-democracy'. Khan, can you set up shop? If you have the cutaneous pigmentation and if you can develop some language skills, you could make a killing. Daddy's Avant only gets 19mpg! Help me out here Khan!! Those damn peasants are standing in my way!!!
