Budget Deficit Drops to $250 Billion

AP ^ | October 6, 2006 | ANDREW TAYLOR

[PhilCollins]

I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party, because Bush is too liberal and because I knew that Kerry would receive about 57% of the vote in my state, Illinois.

If Bush was a conservative, his budgets would have included spending cuts or very small spending increases. His budgets increased spending with larger increases than Clinton's budgets. Between 2001 & 2004, spending for the Depts. of HUD, HHS, and Education increased by at least 28%, each. The deficit would be smaller if the spending increases were very small.

[olderwiser]

Good for you. But Bush was the most conservative electable candidate running in the general election. Did you vote for the Constitution Party in 2000 also?

Great. In that case, you would've helped that dope Al Gore win the popular vote.

[PhilCollins]

No, I didn't vote for the Constitution Party candidate in 2000. At that time, I thought that Bush was conservative. I would never vote for a minor-party candidate if it would help the Democrat. I only vote for minor-party candidates if I know that the election won't be close because I don't want to help split the conservative vote, helping the Democrat win.

[olderwiser]

Uh-huh. Well, I didn't think 2000 would be as as close as it was, but the weekend before the election there were those lame--but pumped up by the MSM--"revelations" about GWB's DWI charge 25 years prior. IMO, it had an effect.

In 2004, there was the same kind of attempt right before the election, the Guard story with the fake CBS papers. That one backfired big-time.

I don't know who's going to win an election before it happens. In the case of Kerry v. Bush, I didn't ask "is Bush a true conservative?" I asked "Is Bush more Conservative than Kerry?" And primarily, will he fight the war against the terrorist powers, or run from it?

And I thought the election was too important to just trust that Bush was definitely going to win, and cast a vote of "conscience", or "send a message".

I feel the same way about this November. Am I satisifed with the Repubs record in Congress? In the abstract? NO! Compared to rabid agenda of Pelosi, Rangle, Murth and Co? HELL YES!

And that--for me--is the choice, friend.

[PhilCollins]

Like you, I don't always know who will win an election before it happens. In Oct. 2004, I used the 2002 election results, in Illinois, and predicted that Kerry would receive 57% of the vote in my state. Kerry received 57% of the vote in IL.

Next month, I think that my congressman Mark Kirk, a Republican who is more liberal than many Democrats, will probably receive about 65% of the vote, as usual. I'll probably leave that section of the ballot blank.

[justshutupandtakeit]

In 1800 any surplus should have been spent on the military. Jefferson's followers in the Congress had cut spending on the Navy and Army and thereby endangered the nation. Had Napoleon not been defeated in Haiti that army was intended for Louisiana.

Jeffersonian defense spending came back to haunt his successor and it only took 5,000 British soldiers to burn Washington.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Should we be on the other side of the Optimal Tax Rate is anyone here going to call for more taxes?

[WhiteGuy]

yes,

this year, the gop led congress has only wasted $250 THOUSAND MILLION, plus the usual $300 THOUSAND MILLION in excess Social Security contributions, totaling $500 THOUSAND MILLION more than collected.

Pathetic, especially pathetic that some would see this as some sort of achievement.

Thanks for reminding US all of the wasteful nature of this bunch of elected "representatives"

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you can't figure that out go over to DU and read some of the posts. That will make it all clear to even the deliberately obtuse.

[4woodenboats]

Oh yeah, I heard about you. Bob's rich cousin Sappy, with the fleet of trucks selling fresh dungeness crab in every parking lot from Sausalito to Sherman Oaks...headed for the S&P 500 last I heard....:~)

[remember]

"Social Security or other Trust Funds"? I don't think there is any such thing.

If it makes it any clearer, you can expand that to the "Social Security trust fund or other trust funds". For a further description, following is an excerpt from page 228 in the Analytical Perspectives of the most recently released U.S. Budget:

Debt Held by Government Accounts

Trust funds, and some special funds and public enterprise revolving funds, accumulate cash in excess of current needs in order to meet future obligations. These cash surpluses are generally invested in Treasury debt. Investment by trust funds and other Government accounts has risen greatly for many years. It was $254 billion in 2005, as shown in Table 16–4, and is estimated to rise to $311 billion in 2007.

The following table is derived from Table 16-4 and shows the actual amounts borrowed from the trust funds in 2005, the projected amounts that will be borrowed in 2006 and 2007, and the cumulative totals that have will have been borrowed through 2007:

            DEBT HELD BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS (billions of dollars)

                                    Investment or disinvestment  Holdings
                                   -----------------------------   end of
                                     2005   % of    2006    2007     2007   % of
Description                        actual  total    est.    est.     est.  total
---------------------------------- ------  -----  ------  ------  -------  -----
Old-age and survivors trust fund..  163.6   64.4   171.7   185.9   1973.7   50.6
Civil Service retirement & disabil   28.9   11.4    30.0    30.5    721.2   18.5
Hospital insurance trust fund.....   12.9    5.1    18.4    20.6    316.2    8.1
Disability insurance trust fund...   10.5    4.1     8.3     6.6    208.1    5.3
Military retirement trust fund....    0.0    0.0    16.9     9.1    203.3    5.2
Uniformed Services Retiree Health.   17.0    6.7    30.3    32.3    115.5    3.0
Unemployment trust fund...........    9.6    3.8    -8.7    13.6     59.7    1.5
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp....    1.2    0.5     1.3     0.0     49.5    1.3
Employees life ins & health benfts    3.1    1.2     3.0     2.7     47.7    1.2
Supplementary medical insurance...   -0.2   -0.1    11.4     9.5     38.1    1.0
Housing and Urban Development.....   -0.3   -0.1     0.8     0.3     31.7    0.8
Highway and Airport trust funds...   -1.8   -0.7     1.4    -1.3     18.4    0.5
Other government accounts.........    9.5    3.8    -5.2     1.6    120.8    3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total investment in Federal debt..  254.0  100.0   279.5   311.4   3904.0  100.0

Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007,
        Analytical Perspectives, page 229, table 16-4

As can be seen, it was estimated that about $280 billion would be borrowed from the trust funds in fiscal year 2006. According the the Treasury numbers (see post 102 above), however, about $332 billion was borrowed. Add that to the reported deficit of $242 billion and you get a total deficit of about $574 billion, $20 billion greater than last year.

Over half of the total monies borrowed from trust funds have come from the Social Security Trust Fund. However, a rarely mentioned fact is that the second largest portion comes from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. It will certainly get interesting when these funds start cashing in their bonds during the quickly approaching Boomer retirement.

[sappy]

Borrowed from actual monies held or borrowed against projected intake?

[remember]

Borrowed from actual monies held or borrowed against projected intake?

The 2005 numbers are actual revenues that were borrowed. The 2006 and 2007 numbers are estimates of the actual revenues that will be borrowed.

[remember]

You mistook having the last post in that thread as winning an argument. But you posted here, undermining new revenue numbers, when libs said the revenue growth, would not, could not happen if taxes were cut.

Please provide a link to one credible person who stated that the tax cut would end all revenue growth for all time. The following graph shows real receipts and outlays since 1940:

The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc.html. As can be seen, real revenues tend to increase over the long-run, regardless of tax cuts or tax hikes. This is because they are positively affected by numerous factors such as real wage growth and population growth. A tax cut will often cause a one-time drop in revenues as can be seen following the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts. But the positive affect of wages and population growth, as well as other factors, then kicks in and long-run growth continues.

Lonely? Ha-ha. No, I figured I'd be talking to you again when more results from Bush's tax cuts came in. Now that boat has arrived, and you, friend, as usual, CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

I have directly addressed the reported deficit figure of $250 billion, pointing out that it does not include the monies that are being borrowed from the trust funds, especially the Social Security trust fund. You, on the other hand, have made no comment on the fact that the total federal debt increased $574 billion last year, $20 billion more than the year before. Likewise, you have made no comment on the fact that real revenues have simply recovered to their 2000 level.

[olderwiser]

"You have made no comment on the fact that real revenues have simply recovered to their 2000 level."

Here's my comment on that--revenues have recovered well from the Clinton recession, BECAUSE OF GEORGE BUSH's TAX CUTS. And another beautiful thing? Americans have more of their own money in their pockets to boot.

Now. As to your political motivations. You avoided the question of who you voted for President in 2004. What's the matter, can't "remember"?

And if you continue to avoid, that's okay. That's an answer, too.

[remember]

"You have made no comment on the fact that real revenues have simply recovered to their 2000 level."

Here's my comment on that--revenues have recovered well from the Clinton recession, BECAUSE OF GEORGE BUSH's TAX CUTS. And another beautiful thing? Americans have more of their own money in their pockets to boot.

So you believe that, without the Bush tax cuts, we would have never recovered from the recession? Take a look at the above graph in post 174. This data is from the latest Bush budget and shows that, corrected for inflation, receipts have recovered from every recession since at least 1940. Hence, if you want to "prove" that some policy increases revenues, all you have to do wait for a recession and then start implementing the policy, over and over again if necessary, until the inevitable recovery occurs. It doesn't matter whether that policy is to cut taxes three times as Bush did or simply to do a "revenue dance" each year. Eventually, the recovery will occur and, like a rooster taking credit for the dawn, you can trumpet the vindication of your policies.

Now. As to your political motivations. You avoided the question of who you voted for President in 2004. What's the matter, can't "remember"?

No, it simply is none of your business. In addition, I see no point in telling you. If, like you, I claimed to have voted for Bush, you would likely call me a liar or a traitor to my vote. If I claimed to have voted for a true fiscal conservative, like Pete Peterson, you would likely have accused me a lying and/or throwing my vote away. If I claimed to have voted for Kerry, of course, you would likely call me a Communist and/or a liberal and, by definition, wrong on all subjects. Let's try to keep on topic. Once again, please provide a link to one of the libs who, in your words, "said the revenue growth, would not, could not happen if taxes were cut".

[olderwiser]

"...If I claimed to have voted for Kerry, of course, you would likely call me a Communist and/or a liberal and, by definition, wrong on all subjects."

And there you have it folks. Another lib weasel outed.

Uh, now by all means, do explain, how is it one can vote for someone like John Kerry and not fairly be called a liberal? (maybe you have some nifty graphs you can show as proof!)

[olderwiser]

...as far as Pete Peterson, maybe you could post a link confirming he was even a candidate you could actually vote for.

The list from this site includes all major and minor party candidates, as well as the write-in candidates, and he's not even listed there.

http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

[remember]

...as far as Pete Peterson, maybe you could post a link confirming he was even a candidate you could actually vote for.

I said "a true fiscal conservative, LIKE Pete Peterson", not "the true fiscal conservative, Pete Peterson".

And there you have it folks. Another lib weasel outed.

You've only outed yourself as another idiot supply-sider unable to discuss the issues. In case you've forgotten, the subject of this thread is "Budget Deficit Drops to $250 Billion", not "who did remember vote for" (though this latter topic seems to excite you terribly). So once again, please provide a link to one of the libs who, in your words in post #157, "said the revenue growth, would not, could not happen if taxes were cut".

[olderwiser]

"Idiot..."

That would you pal. Let me demonstrate:

Guy who claims he may have voted for Pete Peterson in 2004, gets shot down, then offers a lame parsing of words along the lines of his hero Clinton (...the meaning of 'is')...

Guy who's called on his political motivations for throwing a negative spin on higher than expected tax revenue surge reported by a posted article, and claims it's "off-topic"...

Guy who voted for John Kerry in '04 but thinks that isn't the business of the rest of us on this conservative forum...

"Another idiot supply-sider..."

Yep. That would be Ronald Reagan, G.W. and me. As opposed to a Kerry-Clintonoid pretender.

LIKE YOU.

LIB. WEASEL. OUTED.