[TheMosco]

445 this year and 331 next year not including the war and reconstruction costs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_budget_dc

[BRussell]

Deficits don't matter. It's just fuzzy math. Phoney numbers. It's the war. The trifecta. 9/11. The recession started before I took office. Cutting taxes reduces the deficit.

[MindFad]

[angaq0k]

I really feel sorry for you guys.

Hopefully this won't have to bad consequences on all other countries... But I don't think it will.

I think many countries will have to pay as a consequence of that administration.

But then, I am not an economist..

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
445 this year and 331 next year not including the war and reconstruction costs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_budget_dc

Somewhere down the line, someone will pay, probably with higher taxes. Thats what's sad.

[tie]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
445 this year and 331 next year not including the war and reconstruction costs.

This is great news! Just back in February the Bush administration forecast a deficit of $521 billion. The fact that they've beaten their estimate for the first time in this administration shows that they finally have the economy under control and growing. According to Bush's budget director, "The improved budget outlook is the direct result of the strong economic growth the president's tax relief has fueled." They've reduced the deficit by almost $80 billion -- these are numbers to trumpet! (The Congressional Budget Office's forecast of $477 billion in January were just not credible.)

They've also reduced their forecast for the 2009 deficit to just $221 billion, which is pocket change. (Of course, forecasts do not include unpredictable emergency spending -- nobody knows or can know how much Iraq will cost, and it is therefore quite reasonable to assume that the cost will be essentially $0.)

Plus, the record budget deficit as percentage of GDP was 6% back in 1983. Today, discounting the social security surplus, we're only at 5.2% of GDP, nowhere near the record.

[BRussell]

[Dr.HermanG.]

Get rid of the entitlements. No more deficit.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Also, why is it not a problem when other countries finance a larger percentage of GDP in terms of their own budget deficit? $500 billion is quite manageable in an $11+ trillion economy.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Get rid of the entitlements. No more deficit.

I've been dying to ask you this for a while: In terms of "entitlements," where do you stand on resources for the disabled and those handicapped to the point that they can no longer, or never have been able to work? Those who cannot "fend for themselves?"

[Dr.HermanG.]

That's what charity and philanthropy are for.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Get rid of the entitlements. No more deficit.

I agree. I'm all for getting rid of the DoD budget

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
That's what charity and philanthropy are for.

You are joking right?

You think thats going to magically solve are problems?

How about not giving out no bid contracts? How about not letting american companies get away with almost paying no taxes by putting their money overseas?

Its funny how people put so much importance on saving iraqi. Saddam was a bad man, we have to go in there and save the people yet its asking to much to save our own.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
[B]You are joking right?

You think thats going to magically solve are problems?

When did getting government involved ever solve one of these problems? Despite 70+ years of social programs and trillions of endless dollars guess what?

How about not giving out no bid contracts? How about not letting american companies get away with almost paying no taxes by putting their money overseas?

WTF does this have to do with entitlements (which account for the single largest category of government spending and waste?)

Its funny how people put so much importance on saving iraqi. Saddam was a bad man, we have to go in there and save the people yet its asking to much to save our own.

I prefer writing a check or donating time than being forced into some pyramid scheme with the threat of prison.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
When did getting government involved ever solve one of these problems? Despite 70+ years of social programs and trillions of endless dollars guess what?

So we just stop all the programs? We should stop the programs that help the elderly who can't for food, heat, and AC? We should stop the programs for the handicapped? We should stop the funding programs for the homeless? We should just stop everything and hope with love in our heart things are going to get magically better?

WTF does this have to do with entitlements (which account for the single largest category of government spending and waste?)

its called examples of other ways that we can save money, without cutting social programs.

I prefer writing a check or donating time than being forced into some pyramid scheme with the threat of prison.

Guess where alot of these private programs get most of their funding?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Get rid of the entitlements. No more deficit.

Tax appropriately for what you vote to spend ... simple as that. Whether you are for smaller, bigger, or the same level of gov't, this is the basic principle of mathematics that EVERY president, republican and democrat, has known since WWII. The only presidents who have failed in this respect are: Reagan/Bush I, and Bush II. Tax cuts while still "spending like drunken sailors" (to quote John McCain on the current administration) <> fiscal responsibility.

BTW "Get rid of entitlements" = Economy collapses. The amount of groceries, rent checks, other stuff sold by business and bought by people, etc that are paid with entitlement dollars such as Social Security is phenomenal. Take that money out of the economy abruptly, and entire sectors of the economy that cater to these dollars disappear-->tax revenues decrease -->the amount drawn in taxes still falls short of budgetary requirements. The positive thing about entitlements is that nearly 100% of them are immediately recycled into the economy -- hardly anyone living on entitlements are hoarding the money away in a savings account. They're spending it.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
So we just stop all the programs?

Yes, every single one. Stop making people dependent on the government for handouts. Have endless trillions spent on this problem ended the problem? No, it hasn't.

We should stop the programs that help the elderly who can't for food, heat, and AC? We should stop the programs for the handicapped? We should stop the funding programs for the homeless? We should just stop everything and hope with love in our heart things are going to get magically better?

We should stop funding these failed experiements with public money. Money that is earned by working families. Get rid of the entitlements and the tax burden on everyone shrinks by 50% at least. Government has no place stealing one person's money under duress to hand to another.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Krusty:
BTW "Get rid of entitlements" = Economy collapses.

How so? Are you assuming that the people who earn the money in the first place won't actually spend it?

Get rid of entitlements and working Americans can keep more of the money THEY are working for in the first place.

I'd rather the money a person earns through hard work stay in their wallet instead of giving it to some politican or some other person who did nothing to earn it.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
How so? Are you assuming that the people who earn the money in the first place won't actually spend it?

Yes, they won't spend it at the high rate that entitlement dollars are spent. Money made in the middle and top tiers tends to be less predictable than entitlement dollars ... sometimes its spent, sometimes saved, sometimes spent on luxury items that don't have as much an impact on the economy (eg. 500 people spending $1000 each at McDonalds, the local convenience store, etc. has a much more profound effect than one person spending $500,000 on a Lamborghini. More people are employed, the money gets spread more pervasively amongst more people ... who, in turn, spend it themselves.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:

Get rid of entitlements and working Americans can keep more of the money THEY are working for in the first place.

Same point you made before. I give the same response I gave before.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:

I'd rather the money a person earns through hard work stay in their wallet instead of giving it to some politican or some other person who did nothing to earn it.

Me too ...my point is that many of the people who earn money "through hard work" earn it from people on entitlement wages. Many good, hard working folk run businesses that cater to, and would be critically damaged if the entitlement dollars given to certain people were taken away (eg. a drugstore, a grocery store, a car dealership located near a retirement community. Say bye-bye to these businesses because virtually all of their money comes from a "supplemented-by-Social Security" clientele). A drugstore won't sell any Depends or Geritol to people who have no cash.

[edit] To add another example -- the grocery store that does a large percentage of business via food stamps. Gone .., I'm not posting this as an argument for or against reducing entitlements .. just pointing out that entitlement dollars are pervasive in our economy and can't simply and easily be "gotten rid of" without a dramatic demise in business (and related job loss) as the businesses that depend on these dollars go under.
[/edit]

[tie]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Yes, every single one. Stop making people dependent on the government for handouts. Have endless trillions spent on this problem ended the problem? No, it hasn't.

We should stop funding these failed experiements with public money. Money that is earned by working families. Get rid of the entitlements and the tax burden on everyone shrinks by 50% at least. Government has no place stealing one person's money under duress to hand to another.

This argument is nonsense. Has the war on terror ended terror? No it hasn't. Will it ever? Not likely unless the Middle East (and the rest of the world) is radically transformed. Ditto for the war on drugs, etc etc. Have police officers ended the problem of crime? Is there something wrong with using logic to make your case in this forum?

[Saul Goode]

Really. Deficits aren't a huge deal no matter how much you libs like to say so. It's just another tool to beat up a prez you don't like. In the same situation, Clinton would do it, Gore would do it, Kerry, they all would.

It's classic, PROVEN, keynesian economics.

That being said, I would like to see the deficit lower than it is, and it's our illustrious congress that is more to blame than the Bush administration. They are the ones who actually control spending.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Krusty:
(eg. 500 people spending $1000 each at McDonalds, the local convenience store, etc. has a much more profound effect than one person spending $500,000 on a Lamborghini.

These are just ridiculously selective examples that have no bearing on reality what-so-ever. You (nor anyone)can’t predict how 500 people will spend money, any more than you can predict how your straw-man individual might spend his own $500,000. The person capable of earning it, may be likely to invest it, or spend it in far wiser ways than you imagine. Contrary to popular myth, a lot of wealthy people remain that way by being extremely good at managing their money.

The effects on the economy of either group of individuals are in many ways independent of one another. People who spend sums in the half a million dollar range drive a segment of the economy that can’t be straight up compared to people eating too many $3 cheeseburgers at McDonalds (gee, I wasn’t aware we were in dire need of more McJobs anyway). Both are needed, (and everything in between) not any at the expense of the others.

You’re also leaving out vast tracts of red-tape and waste- of the confiscated straw-man $500,000, bureaucracy and red-tape will eat up 70% of it before a dime is ever trickled back into the economy. You argue like government confiscation of wealth is a straight 1 for 1 trade, which it never is.

And anyone who really believes you can grow an economy effectively in the long term through the head-eat-tail method of wealth re-distribution is dreaming. The very wealth that is taken for granted (and phantom-spent 1,000,000 times over in a gazillion different redistribution schemes) is the very thing such a system needs to encourage and rely on, yet at the same time makes such punitive to the point where people shelter their wealth and take it elsewhere.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by tie:
This argument is nonsense. Has the war on terror ended terror? No it hasn't. Will it ever? Not likely unless the Middle East (and the rest of the world) is radically transformed. Ditto for the war on drugs, etc etc. Have police officers ended the problem of crime? Is there something wrong with using logic to make your case in this forum?

Police officers are necessary. Wars are necessary from time to time. Both being necessary, of course, to protect the public from those who would harm them.

Spending public money on handouts isn't. Total waste of money that should be retained by the taxpayers in the first place so that they can donate to the cause they support instead of some politician locking it up in some locked box.

[tie]

In a big victory for free-spending Bush, he's obtained an agreement to extend $145 billion worth of tax cuts without trying to pay for them. Does Bush now think that the economy is in trouble and needs a Keynesian stimulus?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that debt will increase by $2.3 trillion in the next 10 years, and that making Bush's tax cuts permanent would cost an additional $1.9 trillion. The Brookings Institute estimates Bush's plan to let workers use some of their Social Security taxes to create personal savings accounts would cost $2 trillion over the same time period. (Bush claims only $1 trillion, but has historically underestimated spending numbers by 50-100%, so $1.5-2 trillion is probably more accurate.)

Bush claims the deficit will halve by 2009, but has not proposed any spending cuts. It is expected to hit $420 billion this year, a record (and also approaching a record as percentage of GDP). Bush's budget makes no reference to future US spending in Iraq.

Kerry has proposed a 10-year, $650 billion health care plan and a $210 billion education package (the American Enterprise Institute estimates the health care plan will cost $1.5 trillion, and >$1 trillion is likely as these things go). He supported extending most of the $145 billion of tax cuts.

I don't know enough about it, but I think I probably oppose Kerry's health care plan. Fortunately it will be tied up in Congress if Kerry is elected. I think we need some sanity in our budgets. $6.2 trillion more spending over the next ten years!? Bush is absolutely insane. (IMHO as a taxpayer.)

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Tax appropriately for what you vote to spend ... simple as that. Whether you are for smaller, bigger, or the same level of gov't, this is the basic principle of mathematics that EVERY president, republican and democrat, has known since WWII. The only presidents who have failed in this respect are: Reagan/Bush I, and Bush II.

First of all, the last President before Clinton that had a surplus was Nixon. Ford and Carter had Deficits too.

Second of all, the president USED to have more budget power, but the DEMOCRAT congress changed the rules to strengthen their own budgetary power in 1974. Since then this is what the budget has done:

Notice the year at which the spending starts to go whacky.

Third of all, piss-poor spending spanned over Democrat AND Republican presidents. The real common thread over the years since '74 has been a Democrat controlled congress. It wasn't until we got a Republican controlled congress under Bill Clinton that the budget turned around.

Congress spends the money, not the President.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by smacintush:
First of all, the last President before Clinton that had a surplus was Nixon. Ford and Carter had Deficits too.

True .. but not at the hyper levels that began in the 80's. if you look at Carter's budgets, he came in to office with a 74 bln budget deficit and exited with a 74bln budget deficit. In other words, he didn't really help or hurt the deficit situation .. he basically just did nothing in that regard

Originally posted by smacintush:

Second of all, the president USED to have more budget power, but the DEMOCRAT congress changed the rules to strengthen their own budgetary power in 1974. Since then this is what the budget has done:
<snip>

Yet strangely, under these changed rules, The deficit actually was reduced and then went to a surplus exactly ONCE since then. In the 8 budgets presented by Bill Clinton.

Originally posted by smacintush:

Third of all, piss-poor spending spanned over Democrat AND Republican presidents. The real common thread over the years since '74 has been a Democrat controlled congress. It wasn't until we got a Republican controlled congress under Bill Clinton that the budget turned around.

It wasn't until we got a Republican controlled congress under Bill Clinton that the budget turned around.

Balderdash ... EVERY SINGLE BUDGET PRESENTED BY BILL CLINTON HAD A SMALLER DEFICIT THAN THE ONE BEFORE IT regardless of the composition of the Congress. Clinton's first budget was 1993 (not 1992 .. he didn't take office 'til '93). Can you even read the graph you posted ?? Clinton's budgets got more and more balanced every single year in office.
Here, I'll repost the portion of your graph representing the Clinton years: There is no "turnaround" .. its all in one direction -- more and more balanced with each and every passing year.

Originally posted by smacintush:

Congress spends the money, not the President.

Congress is, and has been, Republican throughout Bush's 4 years. They have approved every single budget presented by the President.

[smacintush]

None of which refutes my over all point: The President does not control spending. Period. You want to give all of this blame to Reagan/Bush/Bush when it is congress's fault. It doesn't matter what budget is presented, if W were to present a budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit, the blame for the resulting deficit will still fall on congress.

I'll give Clinton his share of the credit, but you give him too much. You seem to forget that the republicans shut down the government because he tried to stonewall the congress over the budget.

Yes, the current congress is republican, and they deserve the blame for any fiscal irresponsibility. I'm not THAT partisan. When you consider that in the last 40 some-odd years in congress that only SEVEN have been republican and of those seven six have had surpluses, the republican record is better than the democrat's.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by smacintush:
None of which refutes my over all point: The President does not control spending. Period. You want to give all of this blame to Reagan/Bush/Bush when it is congress's fault. It doesn't matter what budget is presented, if W were to present a budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit, the blame for the resulting deficit will still fall on congress.

I'll give Clinton his share of the credit, but you give him too much. You seem to forget that the republicans shut down the government because he tried to stonewall the congress over the budget.

Yes, the current congress is republican, and they deserve the blame for any fiscal irresponsibility. I'm not THAT partisan. When you consider that in the last 40 some-odd years in congress that only SEVEN have been republican and of those seven six have had surpluses, the republican record is better than the democrat's.

I don't understand why people always say this. Presidents propose budgets. Congress writes and votes on them. The President signs them. How is that "congress's fault." At the very least, they're co-equal partners. But the reality is that the president sets the priorities, especially if his party has actual control (like now) or de facto control (like during the 80s).

Republicans have given up any pretense of being responsible adults about the budget. They not only spend more than Democrats, they also tax less. I believe they've always been fiscally liberal, but no one will believe that - it's just myth at this point. But at least now people know the truth.

Republicans are the worst of both worlds - the anti-libertarians. The Social Conservatives and Fiscal Liberals all rolled into one.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
445 this year and 331 next year not including the war and reconstruction costs.

But Bush's White House "lies". Why would you all of a sudden believe this?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't understand why people always say this. Presidents propose budgets. Congress writes and votes on them. The President signs them. How is that "congress's fault." At the very least, they're co-equal partners. But the reality is that the president sets the priorities, especially if his party has actual control (like now) or de facto control (like during the 80s).

Republicans have given up any pretense of being responsible adults about the budget. They not only spend more than Democrats, they also tax less. I believe they've always been fiscally liberal, but no one will believe that - it's just myth at this point. But at least now people know the truth.

Republicans are the worst of both worlds - the anti-libertarians. The Social Conservatives and Fiscal Liberals all rolled into one.

I'll concede that they are more equal than I was saying.

However, you are contradicting yourself somewhat. How can you say that they are more like equal partners and then not give the Republicans ANY credit for the surplus under Clinton. With all the resistance Clinton gave, the congress deserves at least half the credit. This is not all Clinton's doing no matter how much you wish it to be so.

De facto control during the eighties? Nice try but the Democrat congress went spend crazy during the eighties. The government revenues DOUBLED during Reagan and yet they STILL couldn't manage to stay within budget on anything. Yeah, I know, when it's good the Dems did it. When it's bad the GOP did it.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by smacintush:
I'll concede that they are more equal than I was saying.

However, you are contradicting yourself somewhat. How can you say that they are more like equal partners and then not give the Republicans ANY credit for the surplus under Clinton. With all the resistance Clinton gave, the congress deserves at least half the credit. This is not all Clinton's doing no matter how much you wish it to be so.

De facto control during the eighties? Nice try but the Democrat congress went spend crazy during the eighties. The government revenues DOUBLED during Reagan and yet they STILL couldn't manage to stay within budget on anything. Yeah, I know, when it's good the Dems did it. When it's bad the GOP did it.

I'll agree with this. I don't give Clinton all the credit .. it was a mix of his Presidential proposals and congress going along with the good ideas and stonewalling the bad ones. He actually implemented NAFTA and welfare reform (forcing able-bodied people off of welfare after 2 years) which were both Republican pet projects. Clinton was liar and adulterer while in office ... but he made balancing the books a much higher priority than did Reagan, Carter, or either Bush. A healthy budget and high employment are definitely the keystone successes of his Presidency and personal morals his downfall.

Note: I don't think that Democrats are inherently better than Republicans with the budget. I think that the Bush I and Bush II have been especially bad with the budget. They happen to be Republicans -- but there are probably plenty of Republicans who would actually carry out both portions of a conservative agenda: Cut taxes and cut spending. That is the supposed conservative formula but as BRussell noted, the current administration and congress are doing the tax cutting but not reeling in spending -- the worst of both worlds.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by smacintush:
I'll concede that they are more equal than I was saying.

However, you are contradicting yourself somewhat. How can you say that they are more like equal partners and then not give the Republicans ANY credit for the surplus under Clinton. With all the resistance Clinton gave, the congress deserves at least half the credit. This is not all Clinton's doing no matter how much you wish it to be so.

I'll give the Republicans in Congress some credit. I think it was just a different time, in which most everyone in gov't recognized that the deficit was important: Clinton made it a part of his campaign, and the Congressional Republicans did too. That consensus simply evaporated when Bush came into office and his administration said "deficits don't matter."

De facto control during the eighties? Nice try but the Democrat congress went spend crazy during the eighties. The government revenues DOUBLED during Reagan and yet they STILL couldn't manage to stay within budget on anything. Yeah, I know, when it's good the Dems did it. When it's bad the GOP did it.

Republicans controlled the senate for most of Reagan's presidency, and the House had enough Democratic Reagan supporters, that I think it's a fair statement to say that Reagan had de facto control of the Congress for much of his presidency. But George H W Bush did not, for example. Reagan proposed and got large increases in defense spending, small cuts in domestic spending, and moderate (net) cuts in taxes. You can't do that and think you're going to reduce the deficit, as he said he would.

I don't think GOP = bad and Dems = good in any objective sense. It just depends on your values.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'll give the Republicans in Congress some credit. I think it was just a different time, in which most everyone in gov't recognized that the deficit was important: Clinton made it a part of his campaign, and the Congressional Republicans did too. That consensus simply evaporated when Bush came into office and his administration said "deficits don't matter."

Republicans controlled the senate for most of Reagan's presidency, and the House had enough Democratic Reagan supporters, that I think it's a fair statement to say that Reagan had de facto control of the Congress for much of his presidency. But George H W Bush did not, for example. Reagan proposed and got large increases in defense spending, small cuts in domestic spending, and moderate (net) cuts in taxes. You can't do that and think you're going to reduce the deficit, as he said he would.

I don't think GOP = bad and Dems = good in any objective sense. It just depends on your values.

Now ya see, I don't necessarily agree but you are almost being objective here! Excellent progress! You are coming along quite nicely!

[tie]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
445 this year and 331 next year not including the war and reconstruction costs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_budget_dc

Numbers are in. $413 billion deficit highest ever in dollar terms (guess which was the second highest*), adjusted for inflation highest since WW II. Federal debt is at $7.4 trillion, up 40% from when Bush took office. (The deficit is $1400 per person, the debt $25,400 per person.)

Bush's administration said today that the federal government has hit the debt ceiling and would have to borrow from the civil service retirement system until after the elections. (Congress is scheduled to raise the debt ceiling for the fourth time in four years after the election.) Bush himself said yesterday: "My opponent talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric." (Kerry said: "Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country.")

Trade deficit is on track to hit a record $590 billion, which would be $94 billion higher than the previous record (guess which was the highest*).

* Easy: last year.

[tie]

Update: Deficit Will Climb in 2006, White House Says

The White House acknowledged on Thursday that the budget deficit would climb back above $400 billion this year, erasing the brief improvement last year and complicating President Bush's vow to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Wow, I couldn't have seen this coming. Bush promises to cut the deficit in half, and instead increases it by 30%. Surprise!

[Nicko]

Just wait till China starts selling all those billiions of $US and oil is changed to euros! Yikes!
Ok, so I'm not so sure about that last one...