$455 Billion Fucking Dollars

[Jonathan_Chance]

Damn deficit.

[Debaser]

Lets see if I can beat the Bush bashers to the punch on this one. $50 Billion of it is because of tax cuts. As to the rest? It’s the economy, stupid!

[Michael_Ellis]

Now now, $90 billion of it is the Damned Farm Bill.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**Lets see if I can beat the Bush bashers to the punch on this one. $50 Billion of it is because of tax cuts. As to the rest? It’s the economy, stupid! **

Yep, just as George Bush Sr. found out, so will Jr.

Let me append to the Bush Apologista’s post:

(a) it was multiple tax cuts, not just 1. And the budget impact is much, much larger then 50 Billion when totalled by anyone not beholden to Bush.

(b) it was the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq.

(c) the horrible economy- thanks Curious George.

Cites (now there’s a concept):

The deficit outlook also dominated the semi-annual report to Congress by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who expressed his concern that the administration and Congress had not curbed federal spending while enacting more than $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the past three years. He warned that if budget deficits persist, they would inevitably drive up interest rates and choke off economic recovery.

and

The turnaround from budget surpluses to deficits is reflected by the series of forecasts the administration has made since George W. Bush took office in 2001. Since April 2001, when the president forecast a $242-billion surplus for the 2003 fiscal year, the estimates for the same 2003 budget have changed to an $80-billion deficit in February 2002 to $304 billion last February to $455 billion yesterday.

Bolten defended the 2001 projections as good-faith estimates that were compromised by the recession, the stock market’s sharp decline, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, three tax cuts, war costs and the corporate scandals. Since the 2001 forecast, spending has increased from $2 trillion to $2.2 trillion, while tax revenues have fallen from $2.26 trillion to $1.76 trillion.

Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source

What me worry? Alfred E. Newman, President:

The dreary numbers set Republicans and Democrats at each other’s political throats over an issue the public has largely ignored in recent years–even as massive projected surpluses have melted into deep deficits in the budget’s starkest, most abrupt turnabout ever.

White House officials and GOP lawmakers said congressional spending must be controlled and economic growth policies like tax cuts should be continued. They said President Bush has had more pressing concerns.

But the real numbers are even worse!

Democrats linked the red ink to what they call Bush’s mismanagement of the economy.

They also said the numbers masked a budget problem far worse than advertised, noting the White House excluded the costs of a U.S. role in Iraq beyond this year. In addition, the five-year projections miss the massive long-range costs of Bush’s plan to make recent tax cuts permanent.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-budget16.html

Oops someone called shenanigans on Bush’s voodoo economics, version 2.0:

Disputing the administration’s contention that Iraq and terrorism costs have pushed the deficit to new heights, Harvard economist Benjamin M. Friedman said, ‘‘A lot of this budget deficit has to do with tax cuts.’’

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/nation/White_House_projects_deficit_of_455b+.shtml

But what would a Harvard Economist know?

:rolleyes:

[PatriotX]

Don’t forget the unbudgetted,(and unexpected :rolleyes: ), expenses related to Iraq.

[Neidhart]

Fuck.

How soon until we’re worse off than Argentina? :mad:

[TaxGuy]

Right, because a big deficit is a de facto “do not pass go” BAD thing, and there are no three ways about it.

:rolleyes:

Jesus people! I do have a job, you know, so I can’t be the only one here dedicated to fighting economic ignorance. Can I get some help in here?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Right, because deficits (large ones) with no foreseeable end in sight could be a ‘good thing’.

Don’t take too much on yourself, TaxGuy.

[TaxGuy]

I didn’t say it’s good, I just said that it’s not necessarily bad.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
(a) it was multiple tax cuts, not just 1. And the budget impact is much, much larger then 50 Billion when totalled by anyone not beholden to Bush.

He cut taxes 50 billion. That means the budget is impacted $50 billion. Actually less if you want to get fancy because cutting taxes spurs economic growth which increases the tax base.

(b) it was the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq.

Sure, wars are expensive. The American people knew it would be expensive back at the beginning of the war. Still the majority of them were for it.

© the horrible economy- thanks Curious George.

Thats right. The economy is entirely under the control of George Bush. :rolleyes:

It couldn’t have been the beginnings of the retirement of the baby boomers. Or, the 9/11 attacks. Or, the accounting scandals. Or, the end of the growth of the dot-com buildup. Or, the fact that the downturn was well on it’s way while Clinton was still in office.

Cites (now there’s a concept):

Your first link doesn’t work.

Wherever you got this from, though, is just silly:

The deficit outlook also dominated the semi-annual report to Congress by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who expressed his concern that the administration and Congress had not curbed federal spending while enacting more than $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the past three years. He warned that if budget deficits persist, they would inevitably drive up interest rates and choke off economic recovery.

This is just bullshit. Please show an actual cite that works that lays out how bush cut taxes 1.7 trillion in the past three years. He cut them by about that much (1.3 Trillion IIRC) over a projected 10 year period, with most of it loaded onto the back end. But, certainly not in the past three years.

But, as far as spending goes, I agree. Bush should be cutting lots more of it. I say social programs hit the cutting room floor until the budget is balanced! I’m with ya there.

But what would a Harvard Economist know?

Wow. You found someone at Harvard willing to bash Bush. Congratulations. I bet you could find cow shit on a dairy farm.

[elf6c]

1. The Link works fine, I checked it. Again.

2. The Source was Newsday.com, much more reputable then some random frothy mouth right-wing zealout who cannot be bother to provide any Cites.

Here is the link again:

Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source

3. Sorry Alan Greenspan and a noted Harvard Economist made a mockery of your cherished propoganda. But, chuckles, they seem to have alot more credibility then you. 1.7 Trillion it is.

4. The only shit I seemed to have found lately is your laughable assertions.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**Lets see if I can beat the Bush bashers to the punch on this one. $50 Billion of it is because of tax cuts. As to the rest? It’s the economy, stupid! **

You’re 28% right, Debaser.

$177 billion of it is from tax cuts.

The scary part is, this is how much of the deficit is due to tax cuts before the really big cuts have taken effect.

There’s another scary part for right now, though. If it weren’t for the government being able to poach on the Social Security fund surplus, this year’s budget would be $614 billion in the red.

[Squink]

Bush Hears Some Soothing Words on Deficit

Bush invited private economists to reassure him — and to try to persuade the country — that the deep tax cuts he engineered are helping create jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is at a nine-year high of 6.4 percent.
The economists, who included two Reagan White House officials, told Bush what he wanted to hear — “how the growth and tax package has had such a very positive impact on the economy,” Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said.

Apparently cherrypicking Iraqi intelligence served as a “gateway drug” for Mr. Bush. Now he’s onto the hard stuff, upon which elections are won, or lost.

[Liberal]

Perhaps it is time for a vigorous War on Deficits.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**Bush Hears Some Soothing Words on Deficit Apparently cherrypicking Iraqi intelligence served as a “gateway drug” for Mr. Bush. Now he’s onto the hard stuff, upon which elections are won, or lost. **

Bwhahaha!

[TaxGuy]

TO: Folks putting big numbers on the “cost” of the Bush tax cuts.

FROM: World-renowned tax attorney (OK, only two of those words actually apply to me).

RE: The cost of tax cuts in general and the last ones in particular.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION: Go to www.google.com and type in “Laffer Curve.” Remove head from ass. Read several hits.

It’s not a pro-Bush v. anti-Bush thing, it’s a pro-knows shit about economics v. doesn’t thing.

[LordVor]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
Sure, wars are expensive. The American people knew it would be expensive back at the beginning of the war. Still the majority of them were for it.

Ya know what? I don’t have the numbers handy, but the current per-month cost of the war is approximately 150% of what Bush said it was going to be, and we’re going to have to be there longer than Bush said we were going to have to be, bringing the total cost of the war up to a whole hell of a lot more than he said it was going to.

It’s easy to get support if you hide the true costs. Now, I’m not saying he “lied”, but it seems evident that he was at least “unreasonably optimistic”.

-lv

[Jonathan_Chance]

Again you’re at it, TaxGuy. Can you provide me ANY cite as to where we are on the Laffer Curve? Any cite at all?

Because if we’re too far to the left dropping taxes will impact revenue and if we’re too far to the right raising taxes will impact revenue.

And drop the ‘I know econ and you assholes don’t’ routine. You’re a tax attourney, wonderful. And I run a publishing house…again, wonderful.

But big deal. Understanding taxes (or business) doesn’t mean either of us understands economics better than the other.

And I warn you…there are some alarmingly interlligent people better versed than either of us on this board. Be arrogant at your own risk.

[RTFirefly]

Ah, the Giggle Wiggle.

Where is Mark Alan Stamaty when we need him?

[Alien]

Washington Post today reported that there will be $1.9 trillion in new debt over the next five years. And that’s only up until 2008:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2003Jul15.html

The federal government will pile up $1.9 trillion in new debt over the next five years and will still be running an annual deficit of $226 billion by 2008, long after White House economists assume current war costs will have subsided and the economy will have recovered, the Bush administration projected yesterday.

Interestingly enough, the 2003 budget deficit at $455 billion exceeds House Democrats’ worst case scenario last year of a $416 billion deficit in 2003.

As RTFirefly touched, when we add in those Social Security funds that are being spent on other programs ($150 billion), the deficit would jump from about 4.2 percent of the gross domestic product to 5.6 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/specials/fiscal/A56224-2003Jul14.html

As a sidenote, within the EU it’s illegal for a country to run a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, as economists fear that it could sink the economy of the entire union if too many countries engaged in such a practice.

My opinion? Bottom line, you cannot spend money you don’t have. If the government wants tax cuts, they should cut spending too.