TAX CUTS LEAD TO LARGEST DEFICIT EVER ..

[TOAD6147]

TAX CUTS LEAD TO LARGEST DEFICIT EVER IN COMPLETE REVERSAL OF BUSH'S PREDICTIONS
Despite President Bush's assurance in 2001 that his tax cuts "could happen without fear of budget deficit, even if the economy softens," the estimated $455 billion budget deficit this fiscal year will be the highest in U. S. history. In the President's 2002 State of the Union message he tried to shift blame onto Congress, saying "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term so long as Congress restrains spending," but earlier this month he admitted his tax cuts account for 25% of the deficit.

Read the full Mis-Lead --> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1155689&l=5676

[Epidemic]

Ummm, this is news?

The tax cut of course factors into the deficit extensively. However, the spending is geared toward growth. If magically this tax cut were to bring the economy up 4 or 5 % the tax cut portion of the deficit would disappear. It is a gamble but it would seem like something better than dean's ( I think it was dean) plan to create a job creation fund. WTH is a job creation fund?

Secondly Kerry complains about dean supporting newt in medicare cost control and decrease in rate of growth. What would the deficit be now had kerry won that battle. (with out the tax cut it would be right were it is now) 233 billion dollars in restriction was overted.

I have several thousand dollars in my pocket which I am spending on the economy that otherwise would have been tied up in inefficent government.

As I recall the economy prior to the unavoidable recession the tax cut would easily have been swallowed up. When (yes when) the economy picks up the tax cut will turn out to be less than the overage. Of course assuming perscription drugs, government medical care, or medicare do not go wild.

lets put this in perspective:

As you can see this is not exactly what you would call the sky is falling compared with clinton years or any time in recent history.

All things being equal the equivalent amount of money spent at any given period of time must be expressed relative to a standard.

GDP seems as good a standard as any for me at the moment.

If all things remain relative and spending increases normally the deficit will increase numerically to historical highs almost every year. Considering all the trials of the past few years one might expect somewhat higher spending. All things considered the Debt is relatively small even at the largest in history. Explain why the debt was so high under democratic hands with no crisises?

[Theophylact]

The news, Epidemic, is that he finally admitted his tax cuts had something to do with the deficit.

D'oh.

[Epidemic]

Theo,
Ummmm, that is not news to me. You reduce taxes and revenue will take a short term dump. Just like if you raise taxes there will be a short term increase in revenue.

What would the proposed 233 billion in increases to medicare have done to todays deficit? Have you ever heard a democrat say that the deficit was caused by entitlements? Hell democrats are with one hand bashing bush on the deficit and on the other hand stating how they tried to increase govenment spending by more than half the propose deficit on one program.

I am not sure where the story is.

BTW here is some tabular data to go with the graph above.


Adjusting for the new deficit projections that would put us at -5.13% GDP give or take. A hell of a number, I do admitt. But I don't see the democrats coming up with a real economy builder.

[aldtech]

Epidemic,

I don't think I would be using your last graph as a representation of how Gee Dubya is better than previous administrations. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which party was in office the most during the worst of our fiscal deficits. The graph also illustrates that the DNC administration references where clearly after they had taken over from the GOP. (put the graph in yearly sequence and you get a better picture)

AL

[Epidemic]

Originally posted by aldtech
Epidemic,

I don't think I would be using your last graph as a representation of how Gee Dubya is better than previous administrations. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which party was in office the most during the worst of our fiscal deficits. The graph also illustrates that the DNC administration references where clearly after they had taken over from the GOP. (put the graph in yearly sequence and you get a better picture)

AL

There is no attempt to say how President George W Bush is better then all the rest.

The fact is that the President of the US was handed a turd and is dealing with it as he sees correct. At best it will take at least another year to find out the true impact of his presidency. The economy is a slow moving bohemouth. The only thing it does quickly is fall after a faulter.

The point of those graphs is to show the doom and gloom picture painted by the DNC to be taking information out of context or rather out of reality. Deficits can not be measured in straight dollars. Like saying that GIGI or battle field earth captivated america more than gone with the wind. Yea they might have brought in more gross dollars one must remember that ticket prices are about 280 times higher then when Gone with the wind was released. Comparing box office smashes by raw dollars rather then a more fair analysis like per capita ticket sales or percapita with some figure of merrit including number of movies biding for the same dollars.

The deficit can not be measured on the same scale as a deficit in 1943 or 1960 unless you compare it to the engine backing the deficit.

[osprey4]

Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!

When you run out of ideas, the best thing is to repost old stuff.

[shawshank62]

cutting taxes during a war......that was a greta idea G. dubbaya

he has been admitting a lot latley.........lots of mistakes

[shahani]

Epidemic, you going nuts with them Excel thingies.

They even look cooked.

[RedFury]

What I love is that everyone gets in a huff about numbers. What about how YOUR personal lives are. As a whole, are we doing better individually, or worse? Personally, I'm doing better because I've got more change jingling in my pockets this year. I've done more this year financially than I've ever done in a years time. I'm not complaining. Besides, any change in the way gov't does biz is going to take a while to make waves, unless it's a rampant spending spree.

Really, if you say you're going to save $10 a week, it's going to take a while to save up a significant amount, and you probably won't even notice it being gone. Now look at that bank account a year or two down the road. Looks a little better doesn't it? My problem with the Dems is that they can't keep their paws off that $10. It sits there burning a hole in their pockets and they've gotta dream up some new program they can spend that money on. Usually some BS program that isn't needed. I'd rather see my money fund a war and the aftermath, than see it get forked over to a few kids that want to "express" themselves through some gov't funded program.