[Lerkfish]

this CNN story appearst to point out that earlier estimates about the deficit were too conservative.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday in a report sure to become ammunition in the election-year fight over red ink.

In its annual wintertime economic outlook, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst also estimated that the deficit would ease to $362 billion in 2005, according to numbers obtained by The Associated Press.

The budget office also estimated that deficits for the decade ending in 2013 would total nearly $2.4 trillion. The August report foresaw deficits totaling $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

The added red ink was due in part new costs such as the prescription drug benefit created last year.

President Bush plans to send Congress a $2.3 trillion budget for that year next Monday in the face of growing criticism by Democrats and conservatives over increased spending and surging federal shortfalls.

The figures were similar to the budget office's last report as the added costs for the newly passed Medicare expansion were offset by higher revenue generated by the improving economy. In August, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst envisioned shortfalls of $480 billion for this year and $341 billion for 2005.

Even so, underscoring the political pressure he feels, Bush and administration officials have said their budget will propose cutting the deficit to half of this year's level by 2009.

No details from Bush

Bush has so far revealed no details of how he would achieve that. Democrats say his goal would be a minimal accomplishment because deficits are so high to start with. They also say it is meant as a distraction from the even deeper deficits expected when baby boomers retire in force just beyond a decade from now.

I ESPECIALLY love the convoluted logic of the following:

Republicans say Bush is not to blame for the turnabout. Analysts say the surpluses have dissolved due to the recession, the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress, and growing spending for defense, Medicare and other programs.

huh? He's not to blame, even though the reasons are himself, himself and himself? LOL!

[Zimphire]

I know what we should do

We should cut military and intelligence spending in half.

[Zimmerman]

What is the purpose of government? Proivide national security and maintain the welfare of it's citizens.

[Zimphire]

Of course.

Lerk is just campaigning.

[BlackGriffen]

I guess they really are conservative... In their estimate about how much debt they're piling on.

BG

[swrate]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this CNN story appearst to point out that earlier estimates about the deficit were too conservative.



I ESPECIALLY love the convoluted logic of the following:

huh? He's not to blame, even though the reasons are himself, himself and himself? LOL!

"Don't blame the President" everything would of been just the same or worse without him. He is inexistent.

300 000 Iraqis more would of died, WMD would have been used, UN people would have been killed.... anyway, the WMD are in Syria, and W has nothing to do with that.

Trillions in a decade :O

I learnt to not use a credit card without caution (or cash)

snippet:
“Even so, underscoring the political pressure he feels, Bush and administration officials have said their budget will propose cutting the deficit to half of this year's level by 2009”


oooohhhh they plan on administering until then?
I wonder, reduce deficits, who has the magic wand?

Mop the floor…...

[itai195]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I guess they really are conservative... In their estimate about how much debt they're piling on.

BG

Or are they liberal in their underestimation? ...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know what we should do

We should cut military and intelligence spending in half.

It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the budget has grown much faster than before independent of military and intelligence spending.

Damn those free-spending Democrats.

[kindbud]

Time to axe that prescription drug crap and beef up our military.

[tie]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Time to axe that prescription drug crap and beef up our military.

To protect us against nonexistent threats, right? Or to conquer more oil fields? I'm not sure what about the war with Iraq makes you think we need a bigger army -- we won the battles fairly decisively.

Or perhaps you think we need a large, new nation-building organization. You might have a point there. There are tons of countries that could benefit from American leadership. Most of Africa we could take over, for example. I'm sure they all might have potential weapons of mass destructed related programs.

[mr. natural]

Posted by tie:

I'm not sure what about the war with Iraq makes you think we need a bigger army -- we won the battles fairly decisively.

Yeah, but here in America we are individually armed to the gills, and there may come a time when we have to put down.

[The Mick]

Mmmm, 2.4 trillion dollars. <drool>






Oh, yeah...

[BRussell]

I've seen estimates that the 2.4 trillion additional debt over 10 years is a vast underestimate. It's more like 4 trillion extra debt. For anyone who's counting, that's about $15,000 for every person in the US. Thanks George!

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by swrate:
"Don't blame the President" everything would of been just the same or worse without him. He is inexistent.

My thoughts exactly. The President does not exist. The President is now a vacuous hole to be filled with the edicts of the oil/energy industry, defense contractors and born-again Christians.

The federal government has now been rendered useless and irrelevant except to those with enough money to buy policy.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course.

Lerk is just campaigning.

For what? Fiscal responsibility? Smaller government?
Oooo. The... the... the CONSERVATIVENESS OF HIM!!!!


Zim. You can have a fine defense budget. No problem. Let's start by cutting the waste out of it. YOu work for the DoD? No. I do. If where I work is ANY indication at all, the waste must be absolutely Biblical in proportion. I know firsthand. No spin, no political motivation. I got POs sitting in front of me now what PROVE it. And me? I work in this itty bitty teeny corner of the DoD. You should hear what my friends who actually work AT the Pentagon say.

Your statement is irresponsible and shows a total lack of knowledge on how the system works.

Cut the waste (which is easily and clearly identified- I'm not even talking about cutting programs) and the budget would probably drop by a third. Cut the crap about certain programs- like the 6 billion your president spent on a program which does not exist and which will not exist for at least a decade (note I am not talking about R & D for said program- that funding is to continue and is separate)- NMD. He BOUGHT it. And, by the time it is ready, will have to buy it two more times.

C'mon, Zim. Tell me how silly I am being. Go on. The DoD HEMORRHAGES money. Not saying defense is not needed. What I am saying is that the waste is SHOCKING. And I personally see it 5 days a week.

I just dismantled and sent for scrapping a massive server setup- the original PO was for about 480k. The setup is one year old- still under warranty, even. And it is being trashed. Why? To get the new one. No other reason. Talked to the requisitioner myself. New equipment approved and bought- at 510k. Who paid, Zim?

Hell, the amount of money consumed here is a JOKE. People literally LAUGH at it.

Tell me what a zealot I am being. Tell me how silly I am.

Kill DoD? Nah. Just CONTROL it and we will have enough money to fund every school in the US according to need and on a per student basis.

Unless, of course, like our president (who institutes this "NCLB" and completely UN funds it), you think it is more important kill folk and dismantle regimes than it is to educate our own people. Unless you feel that $300 you got last year justifies massive cuts to state funding which translates into massive cuts for public schools FIRST. What DID you do with that $300? Was it more important than the stack of texts or month's worth of bandwidth of month of lunch for some poor kindergardener? But hey, you are not uncommon. Creed of America is "ME FIRST". Phuq the consequences. I got my SUV. I got my $600 tax cut. My kid is going to Mo Brown anyway. What do I care about a crumbling Public School system?

FIRSTHAND, kid. My own eyes. Spin that. Apologize for that. Rationalize it away. I have zero doubt that that is exactly what you will do.

[Spheric Harlot]

Stop projecting, silly.

[boots]

Originally posted by maxelson:
For what? Fiscal responsibility? Smaller government?
Oooo. The... the... the CONSERVATIVENESS OF HIM!!!!

Let's see if I can properly Channel the Zimster:



Take THAT you silly cheese head

[Zimphire]

[maxelson]

I see, Zim. You have no response. I'll take it then, that you are conceding my point.

[davecom]

Originally posted by Zimmerman:
What is the purpose of government? Proivide national security and maintain the welfare of it's citizens.

Wrong, I suggest you read Locke's "Two Treatises of Government".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I see, Zim. You have no response. I'll take it then, that you are conceding my point.

No max I have just answered it many times ad nauseam in other threads where you have responded to me about the same thing. AKA "poltical zealot complaining"

Half your response had nothing to do with my post.

Here is a good example of me responding to you about this very same thing early this evening.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...p;pagenumber=3

Go read. Scoot.

[kvm_mkdb]

The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think:

To find out how much of the government's net interest payments on the national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I have added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year's ratio of national security spending -- military, veterans, and international affairs -- to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 81.1 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public in 2002. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government's net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $138.7 billion.

Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $596.1 billion, which is more than 73 percent greater than DoD outlays alone.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031222Higgs.html

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No max I have just answered it many times ad nauseam in other threads where you have responded to me about the same thing. AKA "poltical zealot complaining"

Half your response had nothing to do with my post.

Here is a good example of me responding to you about this very same thing early this evening.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...p;pagenumber=3

Go read. Scoot.

My post goes DIRECTLY to answer your post which stated, "I know what we should do

We should cut military and intelligence spending in half."

Am I wrong in assuming that the comment was facetious? Given your past arguments, I have come to the conclusion that you would never advocate a cut of defense.

Now.

Answer. POINT FOR POINT. It is all on topic, Zim. Time to learn the art of argument, Zim. No more evasion. No more "aw, he's whining" or "Bush Hating Political Zealot". If I thought you had answered to ANYTHING I posted, I'd have said so. You have NOT. At all. No more circular "logic" I am CALLING YOU TO IT. NOW. Answer point for point. I'll wait.

[Logic]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Answer. POINT FOR POINT. It is all on topic, Zim. Time to learn the art of argument, Zim. No more evasion. No more "aw, he's whining" or "Bush Hating Political Zealot". If I thought you had answered to ANYTHING I posted, I'd have said so. You have NOT. At all. No more circular "logic" I am CALLING YOU TO IT. NOW. Answer point for point. I'll wait.

Why do you do this? You know he doesn't have the intellect needed to do that.

Please just ignore him.

[maxelson]

Not this time, Logic. This entire "argument" with Zim will go to a point. I promise. WHether or not this point is stating the obvious, well, it may be.

[Timo]

C'mon. SPADE.

Ideological zealots are systemically unable to debate -- the very idea is regarded as stooping and is, as such, beneath them.

There is no real discussion to be had with people who confuse democracy with the fortunes of their hometown football team and whose religion boils down to "my god can kick your god's ass."

[Mastrap]

Logic

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by Logic:
Why do you do this? You know he doesn't have the intellect needed to do that.

Please just ignore him.

Max is doing this to prove a point to anybody who might be new to the forum. And I suggest we do it whenever possible.

Zim is a raging hemmorhoidal imbecile on the ass of America and he exemplifies a segment of the population. He should be made an example of. Or he should leave.

Actually I take that back. He should stay for all to see in his full glory. He is a useful tool for us all.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by maxelson:
This entire "argument" with Zim will go to a point. I promise.

In over three years, I have yet to see that happen (Zimpo actually addressing a point and/or using any kind of logic that is neither circular nor fuzzy).
If you think you can do it, go for it.

I wouldn't expect anything to come out of it but 100% silliness though

[maxelson]

Well, let's see what he does.

[simonjames]

Back to the topic

If the debt gets so out of hand that "billions" become "trillions" then think of the income (or GDP) that is wasted just paying back the interest.

Time for America to re-think it's space & invasion programs - get your own backyard in order before jumping the fence into other's

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
C'mon. SPADE.

Ideological zealots are systemically unable to debate -- the very idea is regarded as stooping and is, as such, beneath them.

There is no real discussion to be had with people who confuse democracy with the fortunes of their hometown football team and whose religion boils down to "my god can kick your god's ass."

[maxelson]

Hear that, Zim? You better make this good. All my liberal pansey ass bedwetting tree hugger hysterical political zealot whiny homies are ganging up on me for chasing you down. Make it worth it.

[Timo]

Tree-hugger.

Oh, and sorry Lerk for derailing your thread. My contribution for putting it back on track...hmmm...OK:

It seem clear to me that this particular Republican Administration has been happy to use the rhetoric of conservatism, and to rely on conservative support, especially the kind offered by fiscally conservative people who pull their own weight and expect others to do the same. What has been interesting, and distressing, is that under the conservative bluster there's a big give-away going on. Fiscal conservatism is used as rhetorical bluster for giving away public property, using the argument that public property (indeed the whole Federal Government) shouldn't exist anyway.

That's fine for debate, but what galls me is that the give-away enriches the few at the expense of the many. It's so shameless.

[eklipse]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Hear that, Zim? You better make this good. All my liberal pansey ass bedwetting tree hugger hysterical political zealot whiny homies are ganging up on me for chasing you down. Make it worth it.

um, no, actually I think we're all saying the effort, while noble, is sisyphean.

[chris v]

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney, VPOTUS

CV

[MAlan]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I've seen estimates that the 2.4 trillion additional debt over 10 years is a vast underestimate. It's more like 4 trillion extra debt. For anyone who's counting, that's about $15,000 for every person in the US. Thanks George!

try 44 trillion of unfunded liabilities.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news...pain/index.htm

[BRussell]

Yeah but that's over more than 75 years.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um, no, actually I think we're all saying the effort, while noble, is sisyphean.

You callin me a sissy? Why, I oughta...

You're right. Been all day. I'm not getting an answer. Which is probably the best answer on many levels.
Carry on, then!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You callin me a sissy? Why, I oughta...

You're right. Been all day. I'm not getting an answer. Which is probably the best answer on many levels.
Carry on, then!

sissy? well, you ARE an actor. (joke-- I get that a lot for being an artist).



BOT:

what is awfully funny is here I am, a liberal, complaining about the LACK of fiscal conservatism in the present administration. But that's just how topsy turvy the campaign rhetoric is compared the actual actions of the current prez.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what is awfully funny is here I am, a liberal, complaining about the LACK of fiscal conservatism in the present administration. But that's just how topsy turvy the campaign rhetoric is compared the actual actions of the current prez.

I hear you. I speculated in another thread that the whole notion of conservatives = fiscally responsible was just an accident of fate, a reflexive habit built up over decades of fighting a Democrat-dominated Congress. Now that the GOP can determine how to spend the money, you see what this "principle" really means.

[Shaddim]

One comment. Just who is the debt owed to?

thank about this one for a while.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
One comment. Just who is the debt owed to?

thank about this one for a while.

As if that means it doesn't have to be paid.
Even the interest on the debt that must be paid, regardless of who it paid to. And the higher the principal, the higher the cost in payments to just address the interest.

[maxelson]

Is the implication that we should forgive the debt?

[Shaddim]

I'm just saying that I'd rather the Gov't owed the private sector $, rather than the other way around.

[MacOSR]

Interesting site...

http://www.nationaldebt.org/

[MacOSR]

Another one...

http://www.federalbudget.com/

[MacOSR]

The offical source...

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

[MacOSR]

Last one...


http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history