Posted on 08/10/2005 11:15:11 AM PDT by SierraWasp
BULLETIN >> U.S. FEDERAL DEFICIT SHRINKS TO $53 BLN IN JULY
yah, I dunno. If I had less money, but no debt, I'd be happy.
He screwed up on Medicare, absolutely.
And the problem with "long term" effects of debt is that there are just too many economic variables long term: in the Clinton years, he raised taxes and got a boom . . . because the price of oil was VERY low; computers began to drive productivity up everywhere; and a vast new market opened in Eastern Europe. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that, but it certainly minimized the entire U.S. fiscal policy.
He made the case for it. He led the charge for it. He has been the commander in chief of it. We've been fighting Saddam half-heartedly for some time now. Looking back, there had been talk back in the Clinton days of taking him out. But then, the Clinton crew were a bunch of petty thugs, so I don't know what that's worth. Blair certainly upped what he was willing to do since the 90s. But GW is definitely the one who led the final charge to war. No question about that.
The gubmint hasn't "got" any money. It has to take it from us. I'd prefer we didn't provide the beast with quite as much leverage as you apparantly want to. But judging from your screenname, maybe when you're spending US taxpayer money (or leveraging debt against it,) it's not your money?
I know what you're saying about Reagan. He used to blame the Congress for the spending. Well the GOP doesn't have that excuse anymore. Reagan walked the walk. I recall his initial budgets and some reforms he wanted to enact had not a prayer back in those days. Can you imagine in your wildest dream Ronald Reagan proposing and enacting a huge prescription drug entitlement added on to Medicare?
The budget deficit refers to actual changes in the debt, not what we think the changes will be. Budget deficit projections refer to the what we think the changes will be.
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.
The Republicans in Congress would have forced Gore and Kerry to maintain fiscal discipline, just as (or even more effectively than) they forced Clinton to do so. When there's a Republican in the White House, they give him a free pass on all that.
I agree with that. What it really means is that the US economy doesn't care too much if the top rate is 36 or 39. The big hoopla about the Bush tax cuts is kind of overdone. It was pretty small.
That's why what the country really needs is for the socialists to be purged from the democrat party. they need the bill clinton/bill richardson types to be the left. with the zell millers and the joe liebermans on the right. that party would actually compete with the GOP on the battlefield of ideas. Right now we have two irreconcilable parties, which actually liberates both from accountability. They really have very little competition because so few ppl would be able to vote for either/or. They are too far apart. And yet the dims got 48% so maybe I am totally off base. I feel like there is no way to exert pressure on the GOP, with the dims so far out to lunch, and I find that very frustrating. It doesnt feel like a two party system. It feels like a one party system. It's like, you can choose DSL or Cable, but you can't choose the provider. the primary system is totally not working.
so whupteedo?
The President ran for re-election on the basis of cutting the deficit in half over the next four years. This was a realistic promise, given the very tough times we found ourselves in during the early 2000s. His opponent made the same promise regarding the deficit, but that promise made no sense since his opponent also promised massive increases in spending.
It looks like, in year 1 of 4, we will bring the deficit down from a bit more than $400B to bit less than $350 and, so, we are on track. The deficit is being reduced by a growing economy; that is, we are growing our way out of the deficit. Spending is rising by about the rate of GDP growth, while revenues are surging by somewhat more than twice that.
It would, in my opinion, be better if we could actually cut federal spending. But, until we start withdrawing from Iraq, I don't think that is realistic. Once we do start withdrawing from Iraq next year, we will move from an o.k. fiscal position to a very strong fiscal position, with a balanced budget, or maybe a surplus.
The Bureau of Public Debt shows that the deficit for this fiscal year is already $503 billion dollars .
I don't see the feds netting $150 billion over the next two months to make up the difference.
It looks like they are cooking the books with these numbers just like they are with inflation, GDP, and employment.
That is incorrect. The budget deficit refers to this years budget difference between revenues and expenditures.
Interesting, I consider them too close together. Both want to spend, spend, spend.
"When you're heading for a cliff, it's not "negativity" to recommend a course correction."
According to you, reducing the deficit means a course correction is needed.
I will not be taking any financial advice from you.
No... this is another way the government keeps from us the true size of their spending. The deficit number refers to on-budget items. Certain off-budget items such as Social Security are not incorporated into this number. We have been running a surplus for Social Security for decades. The government throws this money into the general revenues and issues debt against it. This lowers the actual deficit but increases the debt. Our government's accounting would be considered criminal if used by any corporation or individual.
Good description here: What is the difference between the debt and the deficit?
Ok fine. You convinced me.
Do I have that right?
ouch.
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.