White House: Deficit Will Hit Record $427B

[Tr0n]

Got this from yahoo news...yea yea I know "omg it ain't a crediable news source blah blah" well shut it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050126/ap_on_go_co/budget_deficits

WASHINGTON - The White House says its drive to halve federal deficits by 2009 remains on track, though it projects that the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will help drive this year's shortfall to a record $427 billion.


The figure, provided by a senior Bush administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, was among a flood of numbers released Tuesday that underscored a gloomy budget picture.


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said projected deficits for the decade ending in 2014 had grown $503 billion worse than it calculated in September, excluding war costs. The deterioration was chiefly due to tax cuts and hurricane aid enacted since then.


The congressional analysts projected that this year's deficit would hit $368 billion, excluding war expenses, and about $400 billion with them.


The highest deficit ever was last year's $412 billion. The administration official said the White House's 2005 projection of $427 billion showed progress because it was less than last year's gap when compared with the size of the growing U.S. economy — a key measure of the deficit's potency.


"By working with Congress to exercise responsible spending restraint" and cutting taxes to spark economic growth, "we've got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.


The congressional analysts said deficits over the decade ending in 2015 would total $855 billion. But because the budget offices' estimating techniques require it to count existing law — and omit anything else — that estimate was not being taken seriously by many people.


Not included were war spending, the costs of renewing President Bush's expiring tax cuts and keeping the alternative minimum tax from affecting more middle-income Americans.


Including extra interest the government would have to pay, the budget office estimated those items together would add more than $2.9 trillion to projected deficits.

Just read the whole article in the link.

 

[Eg.]

overblowing it. last year it was 1 trillion, 478 billion is nothing. they just keep saying 478 because everbody forgot it was 1 trillion. ok, there we go, wer're half way through out debt in 4 years, thats a lot better then college loans

 

[Scoobnfl]

WOW!!!!! a whopping 3.3% of our GDP what will we do??????????????????????????????

 

[No Limit]

WOW!!!!! a whopping 3.3% of our GDP what will we do??????????????????????????????

I already explained to you how much money that is in real terms. Did you forget? I don't really want to repeat it. Here is a nice little graph to show just how bad this is:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050125/photos_pl/deficit_2005_graphic

Notice how all the years from 1992 - 2000 are and then notice how it looks like after that when Bush went in to office and decided to give every rich person a tax break.

 

[Tr0n]

Those numbers exclude Bush's still-evolving plan to revamp Social Security, which analysts have estimated could cost another $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next decade.

Read the whole article people. :|

 

[DreamThrall]

man those clinton years were horrible!!!

 

[^Ben]

Educate me.

If you have a national deficit does that mean America has 0 money? But if they have no money wtf?

But if they have money why don't they just pay it all back?

 

[No Limit]

Educate me.

If you have a national deficit does that mean America has 0 money? But if they have no money wtf?

But if they have money why don't they just pay it all back?

A deficit means we have a lot less than 0, $427 Billion less than 0 to be exact. So why isn't America broke you ask? Because what America doesn't have it borrows leaving the deficit for other generations to come. It has gotten so bad that our government will never be able to pay back the money it borrowed from our social security, the social security each American pays for each pay check.

 

[Tr0n]

A deficit means we have a lot less than 0, $427 Billion less than 0 to be exact. So why isn't America broke you ask? Because what America doesn't have it borrows leaving the deficit for other generations to come. It has gotten so bad that our government will never be able to pay back the money it borrowed from our social security.

Well there is one soultion...which is the most horrible one, but...go to war with another country and take all it's money/gold/silver/etc...

So yea we are screwed.

 

[No Limit]

Well there is one soultion...which is the most horrible one, but...go to war with another country and take all it's money/gold/silver/etc...

So yea we are screwed.

That actually isn't how it goes. When you invade another conuntry the government that invaded doesn't get the money; the government's friends (Bush's friends) get the money through contracts. So the American and Iraqi people are screwed over while our good friends at Halliburton (Dick Cheney was CEO before he became VP) get all the benefits such as charging $10 for a small meal our soldiers eat. And to make sure your firends are the only ones that get the money you don't let any outside countries that disagreed with you bid on those contracts. Welcome to America Inc.

 

[^Ben]

Wow.

So America is flat broke? Why ain't you in some kind of depression?

 

[No Limit]

Wow.

So America is flat broke? Why ain't you in some kind of depression?

To make it as simple as possible, a depression is when this situation gets much worse. Currently it is a recession because things aren't bad enough to be called a depression.

 

[^Ben]

So why do I hear lots of Americans going " we are the richest country in the world" how does that work if they have debt?

 

[No Limit]

So why do I hear lots of Americans going " we are the richest country in the world" how does that work if they have debt?

Because we still bring in more money than any other country out there. You might want to read up a little on macroeconomics, a lot of these questions are a little too complicated to get in to here.

 

[Absinthe]

The sky is blue. The grass is green. The USA has deficit issues.

 

[Tr0n]

Ok...is there anyway to fix this deficit we have?

 

[No Limit]

Ok...is there anyway to fix this deficit we have?

Yeah, get Bush out of office.

Seriously though, you do not fix a deficit by cutting taxes on the rich (that is what got us in this mess in the first place).

 

[Death.Trap]

Yeah, get Bush out of office.

Seriously though, you do not fix a deficit by cutting taxes on the rich (that is what got us in this mess in the first place).

You realize the "poor" got a tax cut as well right? Are we gonna punish the rich people.


"Well Mr. Gates, you've dedicated your entire life to microsoft, and have made shitloads of money. Hand it over."

Granted they can afford it, but in principle it isn't right.

 

[Bodacious]

What No Limit refuses to acknowledge is that the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, actually increased tax revenues. So that isn't the cause.

The cause of the budget deficit is too much spending. The way to fix it is to cut spending or raise taxes. Raising taxes is illogical since the tax cuts brought more revenues than before. Spending needs to get cut elsewhere.

Also, getting Bush out of office might help, but you still have to deal with the republican controlled congress. Clinton wouldn't have that surplus if it wasn't for the Republican controlled congress.

 

[No Limit]

You realize the "poor" got a tax cut as well right? Are we gonna punish the rich people.


"Well Mr. Gates, you've dedicated your entire life to microsoft, and have made shitloads of money. Hand it over."

Granted they can afford it, but in principle it isn't right.

The 'poor' got tax cuts, are you f-ing kidding? Read up:

http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html

Bush can take the extra $20-$30 I get a month and use it to help some one that needs it instead of using it for his own political agenda to make it look like he is cutting taxes for everyone.

The top 20% received a tax cut that averaged around 67%, the top 20%? A huge 1.2%. So please, lets stop saying everyone got a tax cut.

What No Limit refuses to acknowledge is that the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, actually increased tax revenues. So that isn't the cause.

The cause of the budget deficit is too much spending. The way to fix it is to cut spending or raise taxes. Raising taxes is illogical since the tax cuts brought more revenues than before. Spending needs to get cut elsewhere.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-4-03tax.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/bushtaxplan-size.htm

Also, getting Bush out of office might help, but you still have to deal with the republican controlled congress. Clinton wouldn't have that surplus if it wasn't for the Republican controlled congress.

There is still a Republican controlled congress and our deficit is through the roof; but this did not happen until Bush came in to office. SO please, cut the crap on blaming all of Clinton's failures on democrats while blaming his successes on the republican controlled congress.

 

[Tr0n]

*still waiting for seinfield and CptStern to come into the thread and start debating*

 

[Scoobnfl]

I already explained to you how much money that is in real terms. Did you forget? I don't really want to repeat it.

WOW!!!!! a whopping 3% of our GDP. who cares????? deficits in the past were much worse.

Yeah, get Bush out of office.

Seriously though, you do not fix a deficit by cutting taxes on the rich (that is what got us in this mess in the first place).

what really "got us in this mess" was all of the neglect that our military suffered under 8 years of gross mismanagement and ill preparedness under clintoon, coupled with taxes being to high, which resulted/added to the slow down that put us in a recession prior to him leaving office.

 

[^Ben]

OT:

Ouch scoob you are near the bannage zone.

 

[Scoobnfl]

OT:

Ouch scoob you are near the bannage zone.

yes. I've been minding my manners very well as of late though.

 

[No Limit]

WOW!!!!! a whopping 3% of our GDP. who cares????? deficits in the past were much worse.

Ok, great, so you have no memory.

First off, the US budget is only about 16% of the GDP, you make it seem like you think the US gets all the money from the GDP. Second, our defense budget (about 30% of our total spending) is $355.1. That means with the large deficit we have we could fund another world largest army and spend the other 100 billion on twice as many schools as we have now and still have around 50 billion left over. Do you fail to see how much money this is?

 

[Scoobnfl]

Ok, great, so you have no memory.

First off, the US budget is only about 16% of the GDP, you make it seem like you think the US gets all the money from the GDP. Second, our defense budget (about 30% of our total spending) is $355.1. That means with the large deficit we have we could fund another world largest army and spend the other 100 billion on twice as many schools as we have now and still have around 50 billion left over. Do you fail to see how much money this is?

it's alot of money, so what.

it's not that bad. deficits are here to stay. todays deficit isn't the biggest or the worst we've had, and with continued growth we will come out of it none the worse for wear.

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

 

[No Limit]

it's alot of money, so what.

it's not that bad. deficits are here to stay. todays deficit isn't the biggest or the worst we've had, and with continued growth we will come out of it none the worse for wear.

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

This why I don't like to have a real discussion with you. First you say:

WOW!!!!! a whopping 3% of our GDP. who cares?????

I tell you how much money that really is (enough to pretty much build another nation) and you say you knew how much money that is:

it's alot of money, so what.

when I clearly explain to you why it isn't a case of 'so what". All you are doing is spinning this otherwise good discussion in to circles and I am getting sick of it.

deficits are here to stay

Obviously this is not true since we didn't have them with Clinton in office. How can you possibly think of deficits not being a big deal? Do you understand what a deficit is? THis means that the government is spending more than it is earning meaning someone is eventually going to have to pay that of. Do you understand this? I feel like I have to explain everything to you in baby steps, not sure why I even bother.

 

[Scoobnfl]

I feel like I have to explain everything to you in baby steps, not sure why I even bother.

Relax.

The deficit of today is not the worst we've had.

And the surpluses under Clinton and the recession we were in when he left office is a prime example on why keeping taxes too high and the govt. collecting more $$$$ than they are spending is a bad thing, not a good thing.

3.3% of the GDP is what the deficit is and that is nothing to worry about. yes the numbers are large but don't get lost in them.

sorry i'm not playing into your "ooooooh the deficit is scary theme".

 

[Bodacious]

http://www.cbpp.org/6-4-03tax.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/bushtaxplan-size.htm

Haha, I knew you would try an pull some crap. I looked around on your taxfoundation.org site and found this:

Link Here

CBO estimates that federal tax revenues will total $2.057 trillion for FY 2005—$177 billion more than was collected last year, an increase of 9.4 percent.

Looking at the revenue and spending patterns over the past four years also puts to rest any notion that the Bush tax cuts were the principal cause of today’s deficits.

Haha, keep trying to find the needle in the haystack.

There is still a Republican controlled congress and our deficit is through the roof; but this did not happen until Bush came in to office. SO please, cut the crap on blaming all of Clinton's failures on democrats while blaming his successes on the republican controlled congress.

Haha, read my link above. I bet you want to argue that Clinton had 1 trillion surplus when Bush took office huh? When in fact for Clinton's last fiscal year it was 128 billion. The recession started in March, if I recall correctly, and if you know anythign about recessions the economy startes on the downward slope a few months before it is officially considered a recession.

All the ammunition you have is that "Bush took office when the rescession started" but you can't what economic factors cause the recession, can you? Not without putting part of the blame on Clinton.

Hahahaha.

 

[Bodacious]

Here is the historical Budget data from the CBO

Take note of table one and table 3.


From table one:

Revenues
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1


Is 1,880.1 bigger that 1,782.3? Surely you can do basic math.

 

[gcomeau]

Also, getting Bush out of office might help, but you still have to deal with the republican controlled congress. Clinton wouldn't have that surplus if it wasn't for the Republican controlled congress.

What an interesting revision of history.

Clinton reduced the deficit/increased the surplus EVERY SINGLE YEAR he was in office. Guess who controlled congress when he took office? I'll give you one hint... it was the U.S. political party that isn't the Republicans.

Then come 1994 the Republicans are facing a potential nightmare. They've spent years and years painting Democrats as fiscally irresponsible liberals and then when those Democrats grab control of Congress AND the White House what's happening? They're reducing the massive deficits the previous two Republican presidents created!

Of COURSE as soon as they got control of congress they started making as much noise as they possible could about forcing that nasty liberal president to balance the budget. If people had noticed he already WAS the republicans lose some of their best propaganda material so they have to ty to step in and take the credit for this before it's too late.

Try looking at the historical deficit numbers. The deficit balooned from about 80 billion to almost 150 billion under Reagan, shot up to 250 billion under Bush Sr... then as soon as Clinton took over it started dropping like a rock.

Every. Year.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

 

[Bodacious]

Haha, So Clinton took office in 1993, when the deficit, according to your table was -255.1, and the along come the republican congress in 1994 and the deficit goes to -203.2.

What are you trying to argue? The republicans controlled congress for all of clinton's term except for a year. So you are giving credit to the democrats for one year out of 8 that the deficit decreased? Whatever.

 

[gcomeau]

Haha, So Clinton took office in 1993, when the deficit, according to your table was -255.1, and the along come the republican congress in 1994 and the deficit goes to -203.2.

Ahem... Clinton was responsible for the budgets of 1993, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000

The 93 budget reduced the debt to 255 billion from the 290 billion of Bush Sr's last budget.

The 94 budget reduced that further to 203 billion.

The republican controlled congress elected in November of 1994 wasn't a factor until the 95 budget.

See how that works? Clinton elected in 92... but he doesnt actually start working until 93. You actually got that part right, but then you just ignore that the same holds true for congress.

Gingrich and his pals elected in November of 94... but they don't actually take control until 95 when they take office. They have nothing to do with the 94 budget.

93 and 94 are substantial decreases in the deficit you'll notice. With a Democrat controlled congress. By the time the Republicans took control of congress the deficit had already been reduced by 90 billion dollars from the deficit Clinton inherited from Bush Sr.

Oh yeah, we never would have gotten that deficit reduced if the Republicans hadn't stepped in and taken charge of congress and forced Clinton to do it. Nope... never would have happened.

Don't choke on the sarcasm.

 

[Apos]

What No Limit refuses to acknowledge is that the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, actually increased tax revenues. So that isn't the cause.

Recovering from a recession isn't solely, or even partly, due to tax cuts. It's a natural part of the business cycle. If taxes hadn't been cut, the revenues would be even higher.

Just so you know, we are not on the Laffer Curve. Tax cuts cannot pay for themselves. They definately don't decrease revenues by 100% of their value, because they do reduce dead weight loss, but no serious economist would tell you that the fairly modest tax cuts Bush enacted would have enough of an affect to pay for themselves.

The cause of the budget deficit is too much spending. The way to fix it is to cut spending or raise taxes. Raising taxes is illogical since the tax cuts brought more revenues than before. Spending needs to get cut elsewhere.

Except that Bush hasn't demonstrated any ability to cut spending. His proposed budget for this year will ultimately be even bigger than last years, and that's always without even taking into account the Republican pork that the House will add.

 

[No Limit]

Haha, I knew you would try an pull some crap. I looked around on your taxfoundation.org site and found this:

You are missing the point. When you have such a huge deficit you do not cut taxes. Do you fail to see that if taxes were increased today by 10% we would be getting 10% more tax revenue? 10% is almost half of the deficit. THe Bush tax cuts gave an average of almost 60% to the wealthy!!!

 

[Scoobnfl]

You are missing the point. When you have such a huge deficit you do not cut taxes. Do you fail to see that if taxes were increased today by 10% we would be getting 10% more tax revenue? 10% is almost half of the deficit. THe Bush tax cuts gave an average of almost 60% to the wealthy!!!

you are missing the point. The deficit is no big deal, especially when your economy is growing. Now if the deficit was as big as it is now, and our economy was shrinking, we would have a problem. Our deficit is much the same as any other 1st world country when compared to our GDP.

Don't just freak out because the numbers are big.

have you heard that durable goods orders are up and that they are at a 10 year high? things are good, the tax cuts were needed, they brought us out of a recession and spurred economic growth, low interest rates have created a BOOM in the housing market and things are good, quit worrying.

 

[CptStern]

it's at least $151,900,70, 515 too high ..and counting

 

[Tr0n]

$1,481,257,304+

Thats how much it's costing my state. :|

 

[Bodacious]

You are missing the point. When you have such a huge deficit you do not cut taxes. Do you fail to see that if taxes were increased today by 10% we would be getting 10% more tax revenue? 10% is almost half of the deficit. THe Bush tax cuts gave an average of almost 60% to the wealthy!!!

Where is the law that says the gov shouldn't cut taxes when there is a big deficit? It worked in the past under Regan as scoobnfl pointed out, when the deficit was even bigger.

It is just a differnt economic policy belief is all. In my opinion raising taxes to get out of a depression is not the answer and the recession would have lasted longer and been worse.

 

[gcomeau]

Where is the law that says the gov shouldn't cut taxes when there is a big deficit? It worked in the past under Regan as scoobnfl pointed out, when the deficit was even bigger.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981... CAUSED deficit to be even bigger... then Reagan reacted and RAISED taxes back up again in 1982 (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, The Highway Revenue Act) and raised them AGAIN in 1983 (Social Security tax increase). Did it AGAIN in 1984 (Deficit Reduction Act,think he noticed the deficit was a problem?). Then he raised them AGAIN in 1985 (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)... and raised them AGAIN in 1987 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act). His 1981 tax cuts were completely cancelled out in short order.

Funny how every right-leaning person I hear tell this story only remembers the opening sequence.