PDA

View Full Version : So, how does the staunch right wing republicans explain this one?


TRNDRVR
July 28th, 2008, 09:44
So, if not the Bush administration, who do we blame?


Bush administration projects record 2009 deficit

WASHINGTON - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit approaching $490 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate.

The official said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. A deficit approaching $490 billion would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

An administration official revealed the $490 billion figure Monday on condition of anonymity because the new estimate had not been formally released. Administration officials were scheduled to do that at a news conference later in the day.

The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the $490 billion figure. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.

"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.

In fact, the White House had included cost estimates for an economic stimulus bill in its earlier projections, so the new figures represent a considerable deterioration in the government's fiscal health.

The White House had predicted in February that next year's deficit at $407 billion, which means the increase in the projections since then would approach $80 billion or so. Figures for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 may also set a record.

The numbers represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the deficit measure seen as most relevant by economists. That's considerably smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress and earlier administrations cobbled together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to it with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.

The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.

That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the $490 billion figure confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."

The figures to be released later will paint a picture of the financial health of the government that President Bush's successor will inherit, as well as updated predictions of the health of the economy.

White House budget director Jim Nussle and Edward Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, were scheduled to release the administration's updated forecasts at an early afternoon news conference.
Who cares if Obama will screw us, it can't be any worse than the ass raping that the republicans have given us over the course of the last few years.
Have fun! :patriot:

Mudderoy
July 28th, 2008, 09:47
You understand that Bush isn't running for re-election, right? ;)

If we quit electing liberal democrats they'll eventually go away.

democrats = bad
rebulicans = bad (just not as bad)

WrenchMonkey
July 28th, 2008, 10:33
The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002.

That was the last GOP budget.

Dems took over after that. (Won in the 06 election, took office in 07)

But yes, all concerned spend WAY too much of my money.

Robert

rworks
July 28th, 2008, 10:42
Well, considering that the Democrats made the budget that broke the record, I'd say that your attempt at trolling is a failure.

Please try again on some other forum.

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 10:45
LOL....yeah, kinda backfired on ya there bud didnt it? You do realize that Congress has to approve these budgets, right? :roflmao:

If we weren't sending so much aid to other countries (like $900 million to Africa to fight AIDS - a democrat program), and if we were actually charging Iraq for THEIR war costs (an idea I've floated many times)....since when has the GOP been the "big spender" party? :D

TRNDRVR
July 28th, 2008, 10:48
LOL....yeah, kinda backfired on ya there bud didnt it?See below.Actually, not at all. Just posting crap!

(notice the smileys)

TRNDRVR
July 28th, 2008, 10:52
Well, considering that the Democrats made the budget that broke the record, I'd say that your attempt at trolling is a failure.

Please try again on some other forum.Hook, line , and sinker on the third reply. Damn!!! :laugh:

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 11:01
Originally Posted by TRNDRVR
Actually, not at all. Just posting crap!

:huh:

Since when is that any different from what you normally post? That quote must be from a different thread? :D

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 11:02
I'm guessing you are having a rough Monday and started drinking already? :D

TRNDRVR
July 28th, 2008, 11:06
That quote must be from a different thread? :D[/I]Yep. (http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=962014)I'm guessing you are having a rough Monday and started drinking already? :DAside from the train being really late, I having a great day. And no, I'm not drinking.

Darky
July 28th, 2008, 11:09
If we weren't sending so much aid to other countries (like $900 million to Africa to fight AIDS - a democrat program),
To be completely honest, my solution to this problem would be to take anyone who tests positive and stick em somewhere separated from everyone else. Let them have sex with whoever they want in their own little leper colony of people who got infected with whatever incurable STD... give the rest who aren't yet infected video games and computers loaded with WoW and high speed internet...that'll ensure nobody gets laid...until marriage when the wife says put that damn game down! :D:D

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 11:14
I agree!!!! Can we throw rapists and child molestors on this island too? Murderers?

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 11:15
Yep. (http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=962014)Aside from the train being really late, I having a great day. And no, I'm not drinking.

Well damn, how did I miss that one? :D

Sorry about your train though. Thats gotta suck...

SeansBlueXJ
July 28th, 2008, 11:18
I agree!!!! Can we throw rapists and child molestors on this island too? Murderers?

Been tried already, and some how we ended up with Australia. (not that im saying current Australia is bad, just saying the idea eventually gaveway to normal settlement). Maybe these people need to be the ones we send on moon or mars colonization trips.

JNickel101
July 28th, 2008, 11:20
Well, yeah, and Georgia was a prison colony too. But with the tech we have today, it would work much better. And use a smaller island...with tigers and stuff on it. We've talked about all this before on another thread....

Darky
July 28th, 2008, 12:00
Antarctica maybe?:D

SeansBlueXJ
July 28th, 2008, 12:19
Antarctica maybe?:D

Ohhh and can we drop them off in Spedo's and flip flops only?

Darky
July 28th, 2008, 12:51
Little tuxedos so they blend with the penguins. Wouldn't want to upset the natural balance...;)

tbburg
July 28th, 2008, 19:26
SeansBlueXJ: post 14; Read Robert A. Heinlein's "The moon is a harsh Mistress"

TRNDRVR: I'm not a "staunch right wing republican", but try this:

The Federal budget increases every year, and it has, I believe, has ever since WWII. The Clinton administration oversaw decline deficits because of a huge increase in revenue. They also had some of the largest increases in spending ever. This spending was covered by the increasing revenue, not sound fiscal policy

When revenue dropped at the end of the 90s, spending did not go down, leading to even higher deficits (see 1st sentence above)

If the Clinton Admin. had truly reduced spending, or even kept the increases to a "normal" or "average" amount, We wouldn't be seeing this huge deficit today.


So how was that?:)

PS: That huge increase in spending in the 90s also explains most of the State governments current fiscal mess also, but that doesn't all fall back on a single Democrat administration now, does it.

SBrad001
July 28th, 2008, 19:43
I missed all the fun!

Come boys! Explain to us how 'it's the democrats fault' the deficit is at historic levels.

It's not like Bush has veto power or anything. To hear you guys talk, it sounds like the democrats have controlled the house and senate for the last 16 years non-stop and have bullied the president into budgets he doesn't want.

Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Either your illustrious King George the Slow of Mind has had the power to lead this nation or he hasn't. He had control of the house and the senate for the first 6 years of his reign and he managed to get us embroiled in a land war in Iraq and over see the greatest increase in government spending EVER!

. . . and he's a farking cokehead, you guys elected a farking drunk and cokehead. And you tease me for not supporting Bush, but I didn't vote for a cokehead.

IndyXJ
July 28th, 2008, 19:56
Bush=worst President ever...

SBrad001
July 28th, 2008, 19:58
Bush=worst President ever...

Coolidge was pretty bad.

Darky
July 28th, 2008, 21:12
Name a president in recent history that hasn't had some form of "illicit" past...:) At least he didn't bring his old cocaine habit from what was it now, 20, 30 yrs ago? with him into the White House...