Federal Deficit Down 25.5%
March 12th, 2007 | by steve |http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/monthly_budget
I guess tax cuts are working eh? Of course, liberals will NEVER say tax cuts work. Appears we are getting closer to spending the money we have versus spending the money we’d like to have.
/rumsfeld
13 Responses to “Federal Deficit Down 25.5%”
By Tom Baker on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Of course, that’s the same as saying I overspent my budget by 100 .00 last week, and this week I only overspent by $75.00, so see I’m doing better. You are still $175.00 over budget. You haven’t balanced anything, and you are still spending money you don’t have.
Compare that to the year 2000 when we were over spending by, umm I think we weren’t overspending. We had a small surplus. Spending the money we had so to speak.
Not to mention the REAL deficit is not down at all, because the Iraq war costs are not included in most government accounts. How can you not count billions of dollars of spending? You’re this government.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
You’re kidding, right? Only a moron who was born yesterday wouldn’t know that the Bush administration was overestimating deficits projections. Are you seriously suggesting that the Bush tax cuts reduced the fedreal deficit? Are you a loon?
JMJ
By steve on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
So what you are saying Tom, is that spending 25% less, with outrageous war costs included isn’t a positive sign? Times are much different in 2007 then in 2000. I think what you are trying to say here is that Clinton could do no wrong as President and his policies were completely immune to something like 9/11, Katrina and oil prices not seen since the Carter administration. Let alone a war that your people voted for too.
Indian Giver.
By Tom Baker on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Yeah I’m saying that the tax cuts your idiot President pushed for are still costing this government massive amounts of money each year. The War on Terror is not included in those funds. Yes you have Katrina, but there were disasters during the Clinton administration too. Hurricanes, flooding etc every year. Oil prices have what to do with the federal deficit exactly?
I’m not saying clinton was perfect, I’m saying quit bragging that your still overspending the budget. When you balance it, THEN talk to me.
By steve on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Well shit Jersey… W didn’t exactly raise taxes! So lowering them must be worth something.
By the way, what will you say if this happens:
”However, the Congressional Budget Office is more optimistic, forecasting that the deficit for the current budget year should decline to $214 billion. That forecast assumes that Congress will approve President Bush’s supplemental spending request for the war in Iraq.”
By Jersey McJones on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Steve, of all the stupid things I’ve ever heard, that about takes the cake. Logic is not your friend, Steve.
JMJ
By Dusty on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Lowering taxes yet borrowing money from China to wage a war..Priceless!
By steve on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Tom, unless you are from Canada or some other country (though Florida could actually be another country if you think about it) Bush is your President. Unless you are totally of course, against the Democratic process in this country.
Jersey, uh… grow up buddy. Someone as smart as should have figured away out into the world on your own, and away from your parent’s basement. You’d think at 42, you’d have your mom stop sorting your laundry by now.
Dusty, welcome to the global economy!
By Dusty on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Global economy? Oh fucking give me a break.
By ascap_scab on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
You see, Mathematics is a science, and Republicans are anti-science, so is is perfectly reasonable that steve would argue that “a smaller negative” is really a “positive”!!
I look forward to steve yelling, ’God is my Banker’ as the IRS hauls him away!! It sure worked for Jim and Tammy Faye!!
By steve on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
Nah ascap… (by the way you aren’t like the ASCAP police who bust bars and stuff for playing copyrighted material are you?)
There is actually some intelligence behind why I posted this:
I expected a bigger reaction.
I love watching Jersey and Tom fall over themselves to see who would type first.
Dusty is my hero.
By the way, I pay all my taxes. I paid 2K more than last year. I got a return though because we had our first son and was legally able to write him as well as his day care off. I don’t make up shit and take a bunch of holey jeans to Goodwill at 40 bucks a clip either. If I owe more I pay, if not I expect a refund. Is there a problem with that or do you wanna make up something else to spite me?
By Paul Watson on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
steve,
So why are you happy that the government, without the cost of the war, is spending more than it earns? It isn’t spending as much more as it used to be so I suppose that’s a small mercy, but it is still spending more money than it brings in.
And could you prove that if you hadn’t lowered taxes that the defecit wouldn’t be even smaller? (Obviously it’s impossible to prove a hypothetical like that and I’m not really asking you to, but it is a possible alternative, no?)
By Jersey McJones on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
Steve, Clinton raised taxes and the deficit became a surplus. The top marginal rate was 90% when the economy grew at truly it’s greatest pace for all in history - the 1950’s - and government spending on the GI bill alone was bigger per capita than any social program we have today. The Laffer Curve is a laugh, yes, but it’s also the dopiest theory ever concieved.
JMJ