You realize that the 53 billion shortfall is for one month, right? So far this year, we're over 300 BILLION in the red. Go ahead and celebrate. Woopdidoo.
It's only money. :)
Something's not adding up Huck. I don't think we have ever accumulated $53B of deficit in one month. That would be an annual run rate of $636B. Certainly, nobody would be crowing about that.
It's the direction that counts. If you're Patton in Sicily, you'd probably say, "Well, crap, it's only one island." But if you're the Germans, you're saying, "This is the beginning of the end."
What I'm celebratin, Huck, is the in-your-face value this bulletin has to all the negative, down-in-the-mouth, constantly divining doom people in the Dem/Doom Party, the MSM and even here on FR!!!
That's what I'm getting a real kick out of!!! I get so weary of negativity!!! This is tax cut after effects and all of us Reaganites predicted this!!!
we are spending 250 billion on a war and upgrade of our military. sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Boy I love to see these "conservatives" cheering about huge budget deficits.
If this keeps up the deficit will be gone by the end of Bush's term and maybe we can start paying down the debt again.
Groouch!!!
It has to pass through 53 on its way down to 0, somehow.
Where were we last year?
Party pooper! ;>)
While this is a very deceptive headline and is so in the article it is derived from it is still good news and indicates that the tax cuts are working.
""You realize that the 53 billion shortfall is for one month, right? So far this year, we're over 300 BILLION in the red. Go ahead and celebrate. Woopdidoo.""
No Genius
in June the budget was in Surplus by $69b.
Each month at teh end of a quarter plus April have large budget surpluses, others have large deficits (this was the case even in the surplus year of 2000)
The good news here is that the budget deficit was expected to be $59b. So it came in $7b short. Or in other words we could be in for a $85b improvement in the budget deficit for this calendar year
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.
Which is why Greenspan is trying to cool off the econcomy. Inflation would drive that number to about 400 BILLION in the red.
300 billion a year is a lot of money to borrow every year. Isn't it?