Skip to comments.
BULLETIN >> U.S. FEDERAL DEFICIT SHRINKS TO $53 BLN IN JULY
Dow Jones Big Charts.MarketWatch.com ^
| 8/10/05
| Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Posted on 08/10/2005 11:15:11 AM PDT by SierraWasp
BULLETIN >> U.S. FEDERAL DEFICIT SHRINKS TO $53 BLN IN JULY
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: busheconomy; deficit; thebusheconomy; wgids
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 321-324 next last
To: vik
A government in a country with a rapidly growing 12 trillion dollar economy can afford to borrow 100-360 billion a year without worrying too much about serious economic problems What is clear is that the GOP has severed any connection it ever had (which now that I think of it is dubious) to spending restraint. They just spend on different things. But now the grass roots GOP is arguing vehemently that 300 billion deficits are good policy. We shall see.
141
posted on
08/10/2005 1:04:24 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: Huck
Thanks for acknowledging the obvious, positive changes in economic policy never produce results over night. It's like steering the largest oil tankers. Slight moves take a while to produce results.
142
posted on
08/10/2005 1:05:51 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
To: Dolphan
Still trying to stimulate conversation about whether World War II was "worth it," Buchananite?
We live in a different world now. Budget deficits are ok in a time of war. And we ARE at war.
143
posted on
08/10/2005 1:07:30 PM PDT
by
Deo et Patria
(Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
To: Huck
1) 100 Billion is a LOT of bubbly
2) Can you actually add them together like that and make accounting sense?
144
posted on
08/10/2005 1:08:42 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker!)
To: expat_panama
145
posted on
08/10/2005 1:09:13 PM PDT
by
Deo et Patria
(Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
To: Huck
I think you misunderstood me. I said a chart of federal deficits.You did, and I erred by trying to go too fast. Give me another chance and I promise to hold back a bit. Deficits being difference between spending and revenue, had to be estimated using the graph. Then again, the graph did show how even when the average deficit went up from Clinton to GW Bush, the debt went down.
Just to show how my heart's in the right place, here's a deficit graph from the Treasury Dept. report that the Market Watch article was featuring.
Also, check out revenue and spending (click here). What impressed me is how much better off we'll be once we chuck that stupid Social Security. I don't remember the Union Democrats pushing that solution.
To: expat_panama
Those data on the debt prove nothing about Bush's presidency. Deficits were sharply reduced during Clinton's terms (mostly by the Republican Congress), so that's going to mean that the average dept per dollar of GDP will be lower after his term than during it.
147
posted on
08/10/2005 1:09:32 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: Huck
148
posted on
08/10/2005 1:09:56 PM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(The government and courts are stealing your freedom & liberty!)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Thanks for acknowledging the obvious, positive changes in economic policy never produce results over night. You asked. It's so funny. On the one hand, people say the Bush tax cuts have already fueled growth. Yet, the Clinton economic policies had nothing to do, so they say, with the expansion that followed. The Reagan tax cuts apparently took a while to take hold. maybe the Clinton boom was really a Reagan boom. But wait! The boom wasn't real! It was all a hoax. So was it the Reagan hoax? I am not saying I know what the best way to go is, but I can recognize BS.
149
posted on
08/10/2005 1:10:37 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: bnelson44
Why not? If we were off by 400 bil last year, that got added to the debt, right?
150
posted on
08/10/2005 1:14:00 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: Huck
maybe the Clinton boom was really a Reagan boom. But wait! The boom wasn't real! It was all a hoax.Clinton's boom was over just before he left office. Reagan's tax cuts, the dot com rise (and fall), decent commodity prices and a few other less significant factors fueled the Clinton boom.
151
posted on
08/10/2005 1:17:45 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
To: Huck
152
posted on
08/10/2005 1:23:00 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker!)
To: bnelson44
I saw it. It shows consistent deficits being added to the nat'l debt.
153
posted on
08/10/2005 1:25:36 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Clinton's boom was over just before he left office. So was Reagan's. Wasn't there a crash in 87 and then a recession?
154
posted on
08/10/2005 1:27:52 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: expat_panama
Where do you get the debt going down? It's not. It's going UP.
155
posted on
08/10/2005 1:29:10 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: expat_panama
"So if this happened after all these tax cuts, this has got to mean that spending was cut.
Am I missing anything?"
That's a common misconception perpetuated by the media. Here's a primer on supply-side economics that explains how tax cuts lead to increases in tax revenue for the government (please keep in mind I'm no Dr. Laffer, so my explanation may not be perfect):
1. When taxes are too high, people do not have as much of an incentive to work or invest, so the economy stagnates (thus reducing taxable income). In addition, people have a larger incentive to avoid taxes (whether legally or illegally), so the government tax revenue is reduced further.
2. When high taxes are lowered, people have a greater incentive to work and invest, and less of an incentive to avoid taxes. This leads to much higher taxable income (and thus much higher tax revenue, even with a lower tax rate), and also leads to less tax avoidance (which also results in more tax revenue).
So the Bush tax cuts of 2003 are the reason for the increase in tax revenues, which have resulted in a reduction in the budget deficit in spite of the fact that government spending has increased (albeit at a lower rate than the rate of increase in tax revenues).
For the record, when Reagan cut in half the rate of the highest income-tax bracket in 1981, it led to such an economic boom (and reduced tax avoidance to such degree) that federal tax revenue nearly doubled between 1981 and 1989.
156
posted on
08/10/2005 1:33:00 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: BOBTHENAILER; SierraWasp; Grampa Dave; Huck; blackie; commonasdirt; vik; So Cal Rocket; ...
Speaking of Clintooon, this just in:
The Daily Terrorist Round-Up 8/10/05
********************************************************
Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton Administration's Policies Protected 9/11 Cell
Stay Angry
To: inquest
...expenditures aren't simply determined by what's been appropriated by law, but by what's actually been spent by the various agencies...That's the difference between the annual changes in the public debt (changes in what we owe), and the annual budget deficit (how much we think we'll change what we owe). Personally, I say that following the public debt does a better job of showing what we're actually doing.
But say what you will about "what they've done for the past four years", I for one am sure glad that we're not talking about something Gore & Kerry did for the past four years.
To: So Cal Rocket
From your post (Marketwatch):
"Through the first 10 months of the government's fiscal year, the federal deficit has totaled $302.6 billion, $110.3 billion less than at this time in 2004. " ===
THIS is a 25% drop, which is HUGE. AND President Bush did it without raising taxes, in fact he cut taxes.
I don't understand how some people claiming to be conservatives aren't applauding this.
159
posted on
08/10/2005 1:36:02 PM PDT
by
QQQQQ
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Saw this story this morning. Not sure what it's got to do with deficits, but thanks anyway. Looks like we need a commission to investigate the commission.
160
posted on
08/10/2005 1:39:29 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 321-324 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson