Congressional Budget Office Lowers Deficit Prediction to $437 Billion for FY04

The Guardian ^ | May 8, 2004 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Of course this and other reasons is why Democrats wanted Rumsfeld to testify Friday. The excellent jobs report was hardly mentioned, decrease in deficit I don't think anyone mentioned.

Also Monsoor Ijaz testified in front of 9/11 commission, didn't even know he was testifying yesterday.

[KevinDavis]

This is good.. The deficit could be smaller or non existent t, however it is a step in right direction. I wonder what the Bush bashers is going to say now????

[KevinDavis]

This is good.. The deficit could be smaller or non existent t, however it is a step in right direction. I wonder what the Bush bashers is going to say now????

[TheEaglehasLanded]

We are saddened that the Administration and Republicans in Congress are celebrating such horrible news.

They should turn over the pictures they took of the Iraqi prisoners immediately.

[FairOpinion]

4 posts and nobody pointed out that "DASCHLE IS DEEPLY SADDENED"?! ;) LOL

[FairOpinion]

The media and the Democrats don't want the American people to find out the truth.

I understand Mansoor Ijaz was not allowed to testify in public, for obvious reasons, because his testimony was full of facts, demonstrating the Clinton's administration's serious negligence in paying any attention to Bin Laden.

[gawd]

$400 billion is nutting, epecially in the capable hands of corrupt politicians a republican house, senate and presidency.

[MJY1288]

And who says supply side economics doesn't work?

This is proof that lowering taxes will result in more revenue into the federal treasury. Reagan proved it in the 80's and Dubya is doing so again. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers aren't revised again before mid summer. I believe the deficit will be cut in half before November.

We are on a pace to see at least 2.5 million jobs come back into the Corporate payroll reports, and that doesn't even take into account of the Household payroll reports. I read somewhere that new Small business starts are way up, and almost every sector of this economy is either growing at a higher rate than expected and several sectors are reflecting that the economy is growing at record rates

TDIDS for sure

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Of course their goal is for John Kerry to take over during a roaring recovery that started in Mid 2003 and claim it as his own.

Of course the economy had slowed tremendously after the 1st Qtr 2000 and into recession in late 2000 but Bush has got all the blame for that.

[MJY1288]

"Of course their goal is for John Kerry to take over during a roaring recovery that started in Mid 2003 and claim it as his own."

We wont have to worry about that possibility, because the American people will get to know John Kerry long before November, and as they do, his poll numbers will continue to spiral downward, it will just be at a much faster pace once they get to know him.

John Kerry has to be the most boring and unqualified candidate since Walter Mondale. The only time Mondale was exciting was when he announced his running mate Geraldine Ferraro. The buzz at the time was to what degree of a landslide would Ronald Reagan & George H.W. Bush would win by :-)

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Reagan proved it in the 80's and Dubya is doing so again."

Don't forget JFK's tax cuts, which also worked.

But it's not about deficits or money into the treasury. It's about control: about how much of your life and my life the government can hack off in the form of taxation, and how much social engineering the politicians can buy with it.

[MJY1288]

Very true, he deserves recognition, he was the last democrat who would ever consider such a thing :-)

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

JFK today would be a "moderate" to middle-right conservative Republican.

Pro-military, anticommunist, pro-tax-cut, and a genuine war hero, he'd fit right with the Republicans in on policy. Of course, in terms of personal depravity he'd fit right in with the Dems...

What we are really missing today is a Goldwater/Reagan type. I had high hopes for W, and he's been excellent in defense and foreign policy, straightening America's spine and severing our lapdog's leash from the UN --his father had made the signature mistake of soliciting that corrupt body's approval in our liberation of our ally Kuwait, and the globosocialists like Kerry have made that their starting-point in every action since. So while he's succeeded in making the UN largely irrelevant--a huge accomplishment--W still badly needs to go back to Chapter One in the Republican philosophy book and bone up on the section on "limited government." Perhaps a second term (with a more comfortable mandate, a war-on-terror that is succeeding, and an economy much improved over the hangover that followed Clinton's amazing now-you-see-it-now-you-don't bubble) we will see him return to his roots. Certainly there's a better chance of that than with Kerry.

[Mulder]

This is good..

You have to be kidding.

The economy is supposedly doing great, and the gov't is going to run up the debt by another half-trillion dollars.

What do you think will happen when the ecomony goes belly up again?

Or when social security stops running a surplus (around 2009, I beleive)?

Or when the full costs of the Bush medicare plan are realized?

Or when wages continue to decline due to so-called 'free trade', thus resulting in lower tax revenues?

Or when even more money is required for Iraq?

[Mulder]

This is proof that lowering taxes will result in more revenue into the federal treasury. Reagan proved it in the 80's and Dubya is doing so again

Don't hold your breath. The tax cuts were very small, and more oriented towards removing low-income folks from the tax rolls than from producing growth.

I suspect there will be a slight increase in tax revenues as we saw during the 80s (although on a smaller scale), but it will be dwarfed by the massive spending increases.

Also, one has to wonder how long the economy will continue to do well with $2 gas.

[Mulder]

We wont have to worry about that possibility, because the American people will get to know John Kerry long before November, and as they do, his poll numbers will continue to spiral downward, it will just be at a much faster pace once they get to know him.

People said the same thing about Gore. He was losing to Bush by 15 points early in 2000, and then wound up getting more votes. And they weren't voting 'for' Gore; rather against Bush.

I suspect it won't be much different this time around. The fact of the matter is that the American people really don't care for either candidate (just like in 1992, 1996, and 2000), and the race will be determined by who they dislike the most.

I would be very surprised if either candidate gets over 50% of the popular vote.

[smonk]

the economy is disappearing as an election issue.

the deficit just did disappear as an election issue.

health care is non-existent as an election issue.

nobody gives a damn about the environment as an election
issue.

so, what is kerry going to run on? humiliating a bunch
of prisoners in an iraqi prison? tuh-RAY-zuh's sparkling
personality?

this guy is fresh out of friends.

[KevinDavis]

What funny is that the Democrats accuse the President of stating the deficit being "higher" than it is..

[Proud Legions]

Actually, many, many folks are thrilled with George Bush.

Most of the ones I know who are supporting him are not doing it holding their nose, but instead while holding their heads high.

As opposed to the other side, who hate Bush but are unexcited by Kerry.

If their are third party candidates, neither may get over 50%...hard to tell this early.

[Proud Legions]

their = there