Posted on 07/28/2008 9:53:26 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
The Bush administration today projected that the budget deficit for FY09 would be $482 billion, more than the record $413 billion deficit recorded for FY04. The figure includes the $151 billion economic stimulus package enacted in February and would total 3.3 percent of gross domestic product. That compares with 3.6 percent in FY04. For FY08, the projected deficit is $389 billion, 2.7 percent of GDP. The projected FY09 deficit is roughly $70 billion more than the $410 billion FY09 deficit estimated in President Bush's budget proposal released in February and about $320 billion more than the $162 billion FY07 estimated deficit. It does not include FY09 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Congress approved this year, totaling $80 billion.
In a document released today on the midyear budget review, the White House said the exclusion of the tax rebates and other provisions in the stimulus package would lower the FY08 figure to only 1.9 percent of GDP. In addition, the paper said, the deficit is "expected to fall sharply after FY09," with the deficits in following two fiscal years only "slightly higher than projected in February." The paper concluded: "These projected deficits are both manageable and temporary if spending is kept in check, the tax burden remains low, and the economy continues to grow." The White House maintains the budget will be balanced by FY12.
Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad slammed the new numbers and blamed the increase in part on the tax cuts Bush pushed through in 2001 and 2003, which are scheduled to expire in 2010. Bush "squandered a record surplus on tax cuts for the rich and drove us deeply into deficit and debt," Conrad said in a press release. "And he has dramatically increased our indebtedness to foreign nations like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia -- which is clearly unsustainable." Conrad added that the debt has pushed down the dollar, causing high gas prices, inflation, and worsening living standards. "If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver, and bronze," Conrad said.
by Humberto Sanchez
Now it's spending $3,15 Trillion and taking in $2.65 Trillion. He won't veto housing bailout for $300 Billion. The fact the Iraq War is at $650 Billion and should have been managed alot better from 2004-2006 and not cost nearly this much.
President Bush did this with 6 years of Republican Congress and did nothing to control spending. Damaging the Republican brand.
Thankfully, they wre able to squeeze in another $50B of borrowed future taxpayer wealth to give to Africa to “treat” people who can’t control their sexual organs.
Not to mention the $2 trillion in additional costs of the war down the road, for things such as health care and training, etc., for the wounded.
Bush43 is the biggest spender since LBJ!
The Federal Government should be able to EASILY function with half the current budget... but it would mean surrendering a lot of the tools it uses to keep power.
Return to the
constitutional bounds of the Federal Government and there is suddenly over $1 trillion less tax extraction necessary... that is over $1 Trillion back in the economy, to pay towards mortgages, to give to charities, to do what the private sector does better anyway.
We could have a military that would be unchallengeable, a currency that is more stable, a medical system that is second to none (and not socialized), and an economy that is not subject to the whims of foreign dictators.
But it’s always “too expensive” to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.
The ONLY person running for president this election who seriously talked about the extreme dangers of out of control spending and the impending disaster our nation debt will bring was summarily dismissed by many people as a naive wingnut......
Dirty liar. Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax cuts combined with out-of-control spending were the problem.
You scum-sucking Congressmen, along with Bush's willingness to sign off on YOUR "anything-goes" spending, IS the problem. Both the Executive and Legislative branches have utterly failed their duties on spending.
“But it’s always “too expensive” to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.”
I can’t say anything against President Bush as he is defending us. But I will say that our failure to protect ourselves against the invasion from the south has been a great disappointment to anyone who cherishes their heritage.
If Bush were "defending us" there wouldn't be an invasion from the south, and daily crimes committed by those who shouldn't be here. It's not "our" failure to protect "ourselves." It's every politician in Washington's failure, starting at the White House.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
And we could enforce our border with the men currently over seas in countries like Germany and Japan. I’d go further and say to hell with all “entitlement spending” which makes a little over half of the budget. Then start cutting out all the unconstitutional crap like education and transportation and leave it to the states (as the 10th Amendment says) and private sector (as it should be). Drilling here would mean less foreign oil and the fuel and money saved not having to ship here.
With all that gone, we wouldn’t need socialist payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes and all the other BS, and income taxes would be significantly reduced (although perhaps not immediately to pay off the national debt).
Bush really messed up, it pains me to say.
It has turned the limited government party into another big government party which happens to oppose abortion and talk tough.
Another Liberal Texan.
LBJ is smiling wherever he is right now.
Disgraceful.
Ain’t it a shame? Without this “kook” I would never have become so active in politics and so interested in Constitutionalism and limited government.
Not defending the border is not defending us. It’s hard for me to admit that Bush has been a disappointment. I’m not sure how you feel about his presidency in general, but to dissent is not to attack. I like the guy, but I am terribly frustrated by his 2 terms as president.
How can he claim it was tax cuts. Like you said FV, spending is the real culprit and it must be stopped if we are to survive as a nation. Perhaps one day we’ll go back to a federal government that restricts its spending to Constitutional limits.
Don’t forget racist too. Can’t offend those illegals!
“The ONLY person running for president this election who seriously talked about the extreme dangers of out of control spending and the impending disaster our nation debt “
Well, not entirely. Romney also addressed this pretty extensively, as well. He had vowed to veto any budget that didn’t decrease spending by 1% minus inflation and spoke of social security as an inefficient system that could drag us under.
Your point is well take, though.
For better or worse, a lot of both support and animosity towards Ron Paul came directly from his policies on Iraq. It pretty much drowned out his voice on every other issue.
Just think of all those people who might be paying taxes today if they had not been aborted.
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.