Ka-BOOM!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why were they better?

as late as the 1950's the poverty rate for african american households was close to 60%, today it's around 25%.

[dude1394]

Ka-boom

The federal budget deficit, helped by a surge in government revenue, is running 14.1 percent below the pace of last year, the government reported Wednesday.

The Treasury Department said that with just one month to go in the budget year, the deficit totals $304.3 billion, down from $354.1 billion during the same period a year ago.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the entire year will be $260 billion, which would mean that September will see a sizable surplus.

[Mavdog]

ok, let's take a look at the deficits...

from 2001 to 2005, the national debt has increased by $2.1 Trillion. that's an almost 30% increase in the national debt during the bush presidency.

currently the debt service on this debt is just over 20% of the budget. guess what happens as interest rates go up...

"ka-boom" might be correct. debt service will blow up federal finances.

[dude1394]

Ka-ka-boom.

US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; Benton.Ives-Halperin@dowjones.com

Come on dems, we could use a little help here trying to cut some spending!

US House Passes $49.9 Billion in Spending Cuts
By Richard Cowan
Reuters

Friday 18 November 2005

Washington - The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly voted to trim social programs for the poor along with farm subsidies, student loans and other federal benefits as part of a $49.9-billion package of spending cuts.

The "deficit-reduction" plan passed the House by a cliff-hanger vote of 217-215, with all Democrats and 14 Republicans voting against the Republican-authored bill.

[dude1394]

Interesting discussion on CPI influence of wage measurements.

But Mr. Gordon’s adjustments show that men actually got a 27 percent raise in this period and women 65 percent. The gains are not as big as those of the 1950’s and 60’s, but they do sound far more realistic than the official numbers. Think about it: we live longer than people did in the 1970’s, we’re healthier while alive, we graduate from college in much greater numbers, we’re surrounded by new gadgets and we live in bigger houses. Is it really plausible, as some Democrats claim, that the middle class has made only marginal progress?

In recent years, the government’s economists have gotten much better at measuring inflation, introducing some new products, like Viagra, into the index within months. Of course, this means that incomes lately have not been understated by much and that their growth really has been miserly. (The recent reports showing healthy gains all refer to averages, which have been driven by huge gains at the top.) For all the sunny numbers that Republicans have offered up, the reality is that not a single piece of government data shows that most workers have gotten a significant wage increase since 2002.

So these are the facts. Americans are far better off than they were a generation ago, but the last few years haven’t been very good. It’s time for both parties to move on to the harder question: What are the policies — in education, health care and other parts of the economy — that will ensure tomorrow’s middle class can afford the next invention as worthy as the snow blower?

[dude1394]

Very,very interesting blogpost. It really is weird how dubya gets not credit for the great job he's done with the economy. Lot's and lot's of data.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...isfaction.html

First the jobs and economy being one of the highest issues has dropped.



This one is really interesting.


So the folks who have more disposable income has gone up 9%.
But dubya still gets razzed on the economy. Doesn't compute and would be interesting to see why such irrationality occurs.

[dude1394]

Another quite interesting graph on the federal deficit versus GDP.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...l-deficit.html

Over the years, we've gone from a record deficit of 6% of GDP (in 1983 under Reagan) to a record surplus of 2.4% (in 2000 under Clinton). In 2005, the year that had the attention of that hysterical Washington Post reporter, the deficit was historically typical (about 2.6% of GDP). But that's not what Jonathan Weisman told his readers. He said "Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005." 2005 was not even close to a record in proper terms (i.e., in terms of the GDP), and 2006 is projected to come in even lower, at about 2.3%. Sheesh!

The last 6 points on the plot show the Bush years. Things were in free fall in years 2001, 2002 and 2003 after reaching a nice surplus in 2000 (Clinton's last year in office). As I noted before, these are the years that were affected by both the dot-com crash and the 9/11 attacks (not to mention the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). As the economy has rebounded, the deficit numbers have returned to typical levels, and, as you can plainly see, they are nowhere near the record-setting deficits that reporters love to fret about.

It could be that the return of deficit spending, coupled with news reports that focus solely on the absolute size of the deficit (which leaves readers with the impression that the deficit is unprecedented) accounts for the sour mood. Is it too much ask that reporters who write about the federal deficit do so in a way that clarifies rather than misleads? Probably. But if they did, I suspect that the next Gallup poll on the economy would show Americans to be in a better mood.

[dude1394]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FmYTNlOThjNDU=

Here is what the data says about the current expansion:

Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP contracted in the third quarter of 2000 and again in first and third quarters of 2001. Since then, real GDP has expanded 19 consecutive quarters. Real GDP in the third quarter of 2003 expanded 7.5 percent, a rate similar to the one realized in the fourth quarter of 1999 (7.3 percent), which was the highest quarterly growth rate in the 1991-2001 period.

Industrial Production: Industrial production measures the output of the nation’s factories, mines, and utilities. Production peaked in June 2000 and hit bottom in November 2001. It has expanded for 39 months in this expansion, a 16.1 percent increase.

Nonfarm payroll employment: Employment peaked in February 2001, reached its trough in August 2003, and has expanded by 5.7 million new jobs since that date.

Here’s one other fact you won’t hear the bears cite:

Next month, the expansion becomes the fourth longest of the postwar era, trailing only the expansions of March 1991 to March 2001 (120 months), February 1961 to December 1969 (106 months), and November 1982 to July 1990 (92 months).

The ability of lower taxation and reasoned monetary stimulus to bolster the U.S. economy should never be underestimated. But it’s difficult to see the blue skies when hiding beneath the dark clouds of pessimism. The Wall Street bears should know better, but the partisan bears will never learn.

And one big SCOREBOARD.

[Mavdog]

"reasoned monetary stimulus"????

nobody should be surprised by what a couple $trillion of deficit spending will do to stimulate th economy.

who would've guessed that the current administration would be such a fan of keynes?

of course, these same bush boosters haven't had the guts to mention the huge amount of debt that has been taken on to supply this stimulus, or its undeniable future drag on the american economy.

interesting news out this last week, for the first time in over a century american receipts of investment income from the rest of the world was less than american payments to the rest of the world. that's bad. over a long term it's very bad.

but keep shouting about the tax cuts and how they produced the "ka-boom".....just know that you are not recognizing the true reason the economy has grown.

the "scoreboard" says the bush debt is about $2 TRILLION and growing as we write...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the "scoreboard" says the bush debt is about $2 TRILLION and growing as we write...

And this 2trillion I assume is due to promised SS/Medicare payments, which he tried to address.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

And this 2trillion I assume is due to promised SS/Medicare payments, which he tried to address.

no, you are wrong, the $2 Trillion is NOT due to "off budget" costs such as ss.

try again....

[kg_veteran]

The federal debt, and to a lesser extent deficit spending, are the elephants in the room that nobody really wants to talk about. Sure, Democrats criticize Bush's free spending, but they hardly have clean hands in such a discussion, which is what makes the situation so disheartening.

Tax cuts coupled with reduction in spending would work marvelously. Tax cuts combined with increased spending results in "passing the buck" on to future generations.

[Mavdog]

yes kg, there is not any politico I know of, dem or repub, who has "clean hands" on the sorry state of our nations finances.

however, there is only one politico who has pushed through a tax cut AND proposed huge budget increases while not vetoing ANY spending bill that was placed on their desk.

guess who that may be?

[dude1394]

Full employment baby...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0600335_2.html

The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in September from 4.7 percent in August, which was down from 4.8 percent in July. The jobless rate has varied from 4.6 to 4.8 percent all year. Considering that a few workers have such poor skills as to be nearly unemployable, many economists consider a rate below 5 percent to constitute full employment, meaning just about every worker with the skills and desire to work can find a job.

whooping good..

Labor analysts also released a preliminary finding that the economy may have added 810,000 more jobs than previously tallied in the 12 months that ended in March. If that estimate holds, it would mark a much bigger revision than usually occurs during a lengthy process of gathering information from unemployment insurance filings. And it would help explain why tax revenue surged so unexpectedly this spring and why consumer spending has held steady even as the cooling housing market has slowed the nation's economic growth.

[dude1394]

Kowabunga!! Let's elect some democrats and raise taxes!!!!

The federal budget estimate for the fiscal year just completed dropped to $250 billion, congressional estimators said Friday, as the economy continues to fuel impressive tax revenues.

The Congressional Budget Office's latest estimate is $10 billion below CBO predictions issued in August and well below a July White House prediction of $296 billion.

The improving deficit picture _ Bush predicted a $423 billion deficit in his February budget _ has been driven by better-than-expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits, CBO said

.....

Charles Rangel said: he, “could not think of one’ of President George W. Bush’s first-term tax cuts that merit renewal.”

The Dems can’t think of a single tax cut they’d want to keep in place. Remember that. It’s important, and no one wants you to know it.

[dude1394]

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...t-deficit.html

Budget Deficit Drops to $250 Billion
By ANDREW TAYLOR , 10.06.2006, 01:53 PM

The federal budget deficit estimate for the fiscal year just completed has dropped to $250 billion, congressional estimators said Friday, as the economy continued to fuel impressive tax revenues.
...
The improving deficit picture - Bush predicted a $423 billion deficit in his February budget - has been driven by better-than-expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits, CBO said.
...
At 1.9 percent of gross domestic product, the 2006 deficit registers far below those seen in the 1980s and early 1990s. The modern record of 6 percent of GDP came in 1983 and deficits greater than 4 percent in 1991 and 1992 drove Congress to embark on a 1993 deficit-cutting drive.

[Mavdog]

it's amazing how anyone could praise a president who beats their own dire budget forecasts.

"good news america, instead of increasing the federal debt by about 8%, we're only going to put our country 5% further in debt."

or "hey american public, you'll only have an additional $12 BILLION in debt service next year for the money we spent in 2006! yeah, it could've been closer to $23 Billion, so we feel real good about the job we've done!"

maybe "next year we'll only increase the portion of the federal budget going to pay interest on our national debt to about 32.5% of all the money spent, when it could easly have gone up to about 33%! don't you think we should be given another term?"

[dude1394]

It's amazing to me how someone can continue to gripe about an economy that is at full-employment and reving after a major terrorist attack.

If you are just griping about spending then fine, do it. But if you are griping about the economy, what's to bitch about?

And if you want someone to do something about future obligations how about asking some of your democrat friends to participate in actually doing something about social security and not demagoguing it to death.

[Mavdog]

"full employment" is a term that has varied meanings. traditionalist see it at 3%, others go as high as 7%. under the definition you've proposed the term could have easily been used for the majority of the past 30 years...

what's to bitch about on the economy?
1. the economy has grown, however real wage growth has not been spread across all economic strata.
2. the economic growth has come at a huge cost of debt. the growth you seem to believe is a result of supply side policies has been a result of the opposite, the huge increases in government spending.
3. the huge increases in government spending have not been devoted to areas that one can call investments in our people or infrastructure.

And if you want someone to do something about future obligations how about asking some of your democrat friends to participate in actually doing something about social security and not demagoguing it to death.

of course, this has NOTHING to do with the debacles of the current administation's budgets...

seems that you've forgooten the clinton proposals...of course, they were based on the idea (a lost one in the current administration) that the federal surpluses could be used, (along with expanded ira's and 401 limits). the clinton concept was that ss did not need to be dismantled, which the bush proposals surely would result in.

you see, the clinton budgets had surpluses.

[kg_veteran]

The reason that politicians don't want to talk about the federal debt is that it's not an issue that will get you elected.

The federal debt has become so large that it's surreal to the average person. Kind of like the size of the galaxy, people just can't comprehend exactly how much money the government owes. So, like an individual who's in debt beyond their capacity to repay, they just ignore it. Unfortunately, it can't be ignored forever, and unlike an individual, the country can't file for bankruptcy and just wipe the slate clean.

The reason that talking about the federal debt won't get you elected is that any realistic solution is going to require sacrifices from the general population. Substantial sacrifices.

[chumdawg]

Sacrifices like what?

[kg_veteran]

1. An increase in taxes.
2. A reduction in federal spending, up to and including the elimination of some entitlements.

[purplefrog]

All I know is that my electric bill is too damn much, I can't walk into the grocery store without dropping 100 bucks, and my health insurance premiums are going up faster than a rocket. It is not easy to keep up with all of that. Whatever happened to the "misery index" that was used during the Carter years? Do we still use that as an index for the economy?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

All I know is that my electric bill is too damn much, I can't walk into the grocery store without dropping 100 bucks, and my health insurance premiums are going up faster than a rocket. It is not easy to keep up with all of that. Whatever happened to the "misery index" that was used during the Carter years? Do we still use that as an index for the economy?

Sure do it. Look up interest rates and inflation rates, see what you get.

[purplefrog]

The US Misery Index by President
1948 to 2005

Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President
Time Period
Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter
1977 - 1980
16.27

Gerald Ford
1974 - 1976
15.93

Ronald Reagan
1981 - 1988
12.19

George H.W. Bush
1989 - 1992
10.68

Richard Nixon
1969 - 1973
9.98

George W. Bush
2001 - 2005
7.98

Harry Truman
1948 - 1952
7.87

William J. Clinton
1993 - 2000
7.80

John F. Kennedy
1961 - 1962
7.27

Lyndon Johnson
1963 - 1968
6.78

Dwight Eisenhower
1953 - 1960
6.26

Dude, is this the right calculation??? If so, then I guess I am only a little more miserable now than when Clinton was President..... Just kidding!

[dude1394]

Looks about right.

[Drbio]

purplefrog - Best 0.18 you ever suffered.

[dude1394]

pfrog...Curious if you were surprised at the numbers? Did you think the misery index would be higher because you are miserable and the economy (per mavie) is in the toilet?

[purplefrog]

I was not really surprised by the numbers, but that does not mean that I am happy with the economy either. I believe the things that are hitting alot of us are the high utility bills and health insurance. I am guessing that these two things are not part of most equations when we look at economic indicators. I am concerned that the expanding deficit will eventually catch up to us and inflation will start to be a more serious factor. I have been predicting that we are in for some tough economic times mainly because of the deficit. But I will take it as it comes. I am hoping that I am wrong and will be happy if I am.

[dude1394]

Dangit dubya. How can the dems and mavie talk down the economy when the dow keeps getting to record highs!!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended slightly higher on Tuesday, with the Dow reaching a record close and intraday high after a seesaw session, as investors anticipated a strong start to the third-quarter earnings season.

[dude1394]

The truth just keeps pushing it's way into the the dream.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJBT81.html

Federal Deficit Now Lowest in 4 Years
Oct 11 2:20 PM US/Eastern

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON
The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion _ a figure President Bush touted Wednesday as "proof that pro-growth policies work."

The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing Bush a welcome economic talking point as Republicans battle to hold onto control of Congress in the midterm elections.

Bush called the outcome for Fiscal 2006 a "dramatic reduction" that redeemed his 2004 campaign pledge to halve the deficit earlier than his original 2009 target date.

"These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal deficit in half and we've done it three years ahead of schedule," Bush told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference.

The pledge to cut the deficit in half was based on the administration's forecast that the 2004 deficit would hit $521 billion, a figure that proved to be too pessimistic by more than $100 billion. However, the administration has continued to use the forecast number as its benchmark for deficit reduction.

Bush said he would continue to urge Congress to make permanent his first-term tax cuts, all of which are due to expire by the end of 2010.

[purplefrog]

It is difficult for me to get excited about the fact that we are still spending nearly $250 BILLION dollars more than our budget allows. Great news (note sarcasm) that it is not 300+ billion more than our budget, but give me a break this is still worrisome.

What is more worrisome is that our cumulative national debt is almost 9 trillion dollars and Congress keeps moving the debt ceiling. Maybe the "pro-growth" policies of Bush II are starting to work. I am willing to keep watch and see what happens (what else can we do!!) and praise this administration if we can end the spiral. But I am compelled to ask these questions:
1) Will we ever be able to make significant strides to actually reducing the cumulative debt?
2) Is there a "tipping point" for the cumulative debt that brings down the economy?
3) With the prospects of a long protracted and expensive war(s) should we really be celebrating minor victories in the economy like those stated by Bush in the article above???

I am not an economist so I cannot answer these questions. But my gut feeling is that we cannot continue our present course and a serious economic plan needs to be put in place to actually reverse the trend that we have had since the Reagan years.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

It is difficult for me to get excited about the fact that we are still spending nearly $250 BILLION dollars more than our budget allows. Great news (note sarcasm) that it is not 300+ billion more than our budget, but give me a break this is still worrisome.

What is more worrisome is that our cumulative national debt is almost 9 trillion dollars and Congress keeps moving the debt ceiling. Maybe the "pro-growth" policies of Bush II are starting to work. I am willing to keep watch and see what happens (what else can we do!!) and praise this administration if we can end the spiral. But I am compelled to ask these questions:
1) Will we ever be able to make significant strides to actually reducing the cumulative debt?

Not imo until there is another gramm-rudman bill that across the board restrains spending. It would seem that an overall cap of something (1-2-4%) growth should be allowed. Anything over that doesn't get funded. There just is no incentive whatsoever for any american politician to cut spending, none. They get beat up by the other party, the news, the specific interest group and even their own local constituents. Either a crisis (tax raising) or a consensus to share the blame will have to occur.

2) Is there a "tipping point" for the cumulative debt that brings down the economy?

I don't know but at the current level no. 1.9% or so of GDP is not high.

3) With the prospects of a long protracted and expensive war(s) should we really be celebrating minor victories in the economy like those stated by Bush in the article above???

Why do we "celebrate" the 1000th fatality? First it's dubya doing what he said he would do (except 3 years faster) and it's politics. Why shouldn't he crow about it. To NOT crow about it would be unreasonable.

I am not an economist so I cannot answer these questions. But my gut feeling is that we cannot continue our present course and a serious economic plan needs to be put in place to actually reverse the trend that we have had since the Reagan years.

You blame the reagan years but I don't see it. I see it as a lack of resolve in cutting spending. Clinton didn't cut spending and he did the same thing that dubya's doing now, grew his way out of debt. No comprehensive plans to cut the pension funds, nothing really different.

Probably the only thing that will change this is a very deep recession unfortunately.

[purplefrog]

Dude, the fact is I really, really hope you are right. I want a strong economy regardless of how we get there and who claims the credit. When I see us with a balanced budget and a trend toward a reduced debt, then I will rest easier. As far as dubya crowing, let him crow if he wants. He is the Prez and he has had difficult issues to deal with. He deserves a break every now and then amongst the scrutiny that comes with the job. I just don't think the present numbers necessarily represent a "new trend". It is premature to declare we now have a handle on this problem. For me government should be about solving problems and not winning the partisan game of politics and it is disheartening when national issues are reduced to who gets the blame and who gets the credit. As far as me blaming Reagan for the debt. Sorry if I gave you that impression. The upturn in the trend towards an expanding debt became obvious during the Reagan years, but there is little doubt in my mind that the problems began before he took office. And yes, Congressional spending has alot to do with it, but I would like to see a President just say "No more" and mean it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Dude, the fact is I really, really hope you are right. I want a strong economy regardless of how we get there and who claims the credit. When I see us with a balanced budget and a trend toward a reduced debt, then I will rest easier. As far as dubya crowing, let him crow if he wants. He is the Prez and he has had difficult issues to deal with. He deserves a break every now and then amongst the scrutiny that comes with the job. I just don't think the present numbers necessarily represent a "new trend". It is premature to declare we now have a handle on this problem. For me government should be about solving problems and not winning the partisan game of politics and it is disheartening when national issues are reduced to who gets the blame and who gets the credit. As far as me blaming Reagan for the debt. Sorry if I gave you that impression. The upturn in the trend towards an expanding debt became obvious during the Reagan years, but there is little doubt in my mind that the problems began before he took office. And yes, Congressional spending has alot to do with it, but I would like to see a President just say "No more" and mean it.

A president who said no more and meant it would have every orphan, stem-cell research, katrina victim sitting on his doorstep. Every opposition party member would be calling him, just like they did reagan as making old people eat dog food, starving children etc. The media would be right there with them. Who's food subsidies do you cut? Who's free this and that do you cut, they will be on the evening news in 5 seconds.

It's going to have to be either an groundswell from the public (which I do not see) or a situation that cannot be avoided.

As far as dubya crowing, he's actually doing more than that. He (and I) honestly feel that lower tax rates increases economic activity which generates tax revenue (not to mention keeping people working) and to keep those policies from being changed, he has a responsiblity to use actual data to prove his point.

[Mavdog]

first, it is not impossible to decrease discretionary spending, clinton managed to pull it off.

second, it is facinating that the FACT the economy has been juiced by historic federal spending deficits isn't acknowledged by you or by the current administration.

third, it is only due to the use of cheap costs of labor in (primarily) asian countries that the inflationary affect of this huge amount of spending isn't biting us in the ass.

last, what will the fans of the current administration crow about next year when the tax receipts decline (this is predicted) and the deficit increases again? how will the budget fare when the debt service is approaching $500 BILLION a year? answer: not well.

there is no 1-800-debt-free for governments...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, it is not impossible to decrease discretionary spending, clinton managed to pull it off.

second, it is facinating that the FACT the economy has been juiced by historic federal spending deficits isn't acknowledged by you or by the current administration.

third, it is only due to the use of cheap costs of labor in (primarily) asian countries that the inflationary affect of this huge amount of spending isn't biting us in the ass.

last, what will the fans of the current administration crow about next year when the tax receipts decline (this is predicted) and the deficit increases again? how will the budget fare when the debt service is approaching $500 BILLION a year? answer: not well.

there is no 1-800-debt-free for governments...

I agree that if dubya had been able to spend the defense windfall then possibly he'd have cut discreationary spending. It seems that bubba did it once. And then at the end of his term it was 3.6%, 7.5%, 5.6% increases. After he'd been able to absorb the defense buy down.
http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

I'd like to see your link for the receipts projection, I couldn't find it. Only thing I could find was this heritage report griping that the dubya's tax cuts are too small.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...es/9318128.gif

But the bottom line here is that I dispute your assertion that any president will cut the budget because I don't think anyone wants him to. Even the one factcheck article talking about dubya cutting some discretionary spending had a jab that he was cutting someones milk money.

[purplefrog]

My issue with celebrating the new deficit numbers is that one, or even two data points do not give us enough information to declare a positive trend has emerged. That does not mean one will not emerge somewhere down the line, but rather such celebration is premature. Here is why I think premature celebration is potentially costly to Bush and the Republican party politically. First the benchmark deficit number (521 billion) stated by Bush in 2004 was overly pessimistic (by about 100 billion according to the article posted by Dude ... "The pledge to cut the deficit in half was based on the administration's forecast that the 2004 deficit would hit $521 billion, a figure that proved to be too pessimistic by more than $100 billion. However, the administration has continued to use the forecast number as its benchmark for deficit reduction."). So cutting the deficit in half has not really happened like Bush has suggested. This gives the appearance of this administration being a little sloppy with their economic assessments. Second, IF, as Mavdog suggests, the numbers start going in the opposite direction next year (an increase in the deficit), then you (Bush administration) again lose credibility as an economic forecaster. The last thing the Republican party needs is another tidbit for the media to grab a hold of and use to bash them over their heads in the '06 and '08 election cycles. Why not be a bit more cautious with your language and give a more accurate representation of what these numbers might mean at this point in time. There is some positive news here, just not as dramatic as the President seems to be suggesting.

[dude1394]

I can't recall a link but I would be that when dubya talked about halving the deficit he was probably pretty well lambasted by his oppostion.

All you can do is see the trend and the projections.

If you think that raising taxes is the way to increase prosperity then vote democrat, that's really all he's saying here.

As I said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Nov4.html

Analysts Call Outlook for Bush Plan Bleak
Too Much Deficit, Not Enough Revenue

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 5, 2004; Page A08

President Bush signaled yesterday that he would add personal investment accounts to the Social Security system, simplify the tax code without raising taxes and cut the budget deficit in half, all before he leaves office in 2009.

Ambitious as those promises are, they may be mathematically impossible, budget and policy analysts say.

And it seems that when dubya made that claim the only reason it was smaller was the same unexpected boom in the economy.

Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said the president can and will cut the deficit in half by 2009. But, he said, the deficit in 2009 would be half what the White House first projected it to be for 2004: $521 billion. That projection, made in January, proved to be inflated by $108 billion, in part because faster economic growth produced $82 billion in additional tax revenue and in part because spending was $27 billion less than anticipated.

[dude1394]

George Will on the "Herbert Hoover" economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pinion/columns

Worst economy since Herbert Hoover," John Kerry said in 2004, while that year's growth (3.9 percent) was adding to America's gross domestic product the equivalent of the GDP of Taiwan (the 19th-largest economy). Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will "jump-start our economy." A "jump-start " is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the past 40 years (6.0). Some stall.

Economic hypochondria, a derangement associated with affluence, is a byproduct of the welfare state: An entitlement mentality gives Americans a low pain threshold -- witness their recurring hysteria about nominal rather than real gasoline prices -- and a sense of being entitled to economic dynamism without the frictions and "creative destruction" that must accompany dynamism. Economic hypochondria is also bred by news media that consider the phrase "good news" an oxymoron, even as the U.S. economy, which has performed better than any other major industrial economy since 2001, drives the Dow to record highs. ...

President Bush's tax cuts were supposed to cause a cataract of red ink. In fiscal 2006, however, federal revenue as a share of GDP was 18.4 percent, slightly above the post-1962 average of 18.2. And the federal budget deficit was $247.7 billion, just 1.9 percent of the $13.1 trillion GDP. That is below the average for the 1970s (2.1), 1980s (3.0) and 1990s (2.2).