• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

So, how does the staunch right wing republicans explain this one?

T

TRNDRVR

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Utah
So, if not the Bush administration, who do we blame?


Bush administration projects record 2009 deficit

By ANDREW TAYLOR said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Have fun! :patriot:
 
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)
 
ANDREW TAYLOR said:
The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
rworks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hook, line , and sinker on the third reply. Damn!!! :laugh:
 
TRNDRVR said:
Originally Posted by TRNDRVR
Actually, not at all. Just posting crap!
Click to expand...


:huh:

Since when is that any different from what you normally post? That quote must be from a different thread? :D
 
I'm guessing you are having a rough Monday and started drinking already? :D
 
JNickel101 said:
If we weren't sending so much aid to other countries (like $900 million to Africa to fight AIDS - a democrat program),
Click to expand...
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
 
I agree!!!! Can we throw rapists and child molestors on this island too? Murderers?
 
TRNDRVR said:
Yep.Aside from the train being really late, I having a great day. And no, I'm not drinking.
Click to expand...

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

Sorry about your train though. Thats gotta suck...
 
JNickel101 said:
I agree!!!! Can we throw rapists and child molestors on this island too? Murderers?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
Antarctica maybe?:D
Click to expand...

Ohhh and can we drop them off in Spedo's and flip flops only?
 
Little tuxedos so they blend with the penguins. Wouldn't want to upset the natural balance...;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lobsterdmb
Federal transfers to Utah would shut public out
Replies
0
Views
382
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Bishop aims to ensure federal, local land-use consultation
Replies
0
Views
2K
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Democratic senators vow to fight selling federal tracts to pay deficit
Replies
1
Views
292
XJ_ranger
XJ_ranger
lobsterdmb
Will budget blueprints seek to dispose of federal estate?
Replies
0
Views
234
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Budget boosts funding for monuments, restoration
Replies
0
Views
112
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
Back
Top