U.S. Budget Deficit Hits Record $374.2B

:party: On OUR MONEY not theres

Here's the debt you've TAXED us with so far:



Thanks,

The Children of the United States

I am going to put up this link to a recent NYT article while it is still active- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/opinion/09JACK.html?ei=1&en=f4faacd77d377cf4&ex=1066697973&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1065752452-JSJYnNU8DqVr58lUAp+2Sw

This is also in conflict with what Hollings of SC reported from the Senate floor last July using the misadministrations own figures. the part about the budget having a $698 billion dollar deficit in the White Houses own documents is scary to say the least. He goes on to say how the $455 billion deficit expected offset by means of a Social Security borrowing for the year to end on October 1st has already been spent. We are going broke in a hurry. The speech he gave on July 15th said that the governments numbers on July 14 already reported a deficit of $478 billion and the budget year does not end until September 30th-
http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2003717555.html

Who can believe anything these liars say? These are the people that live in an upside down world where marijuana is a dangerous drug and depleted uranium is harmless. This also is in contrast to the Nationa debt clock- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ - that says the national debt has gone up an average of $1.58 billion since the accounting cycle ending Sept. 30, 2002.

The numbers are bad enough, but why would you think them accurate from people that like to paint pretty pictures of their ugly deeds?

The Social Security and Military retirement funds? Cuts in state aid and edcuation? Medicare/Medicaid funding?

I'm sure in a couple of months the deficit will be revised upward. They just can't ever tell the truth right off the bat.

This is exactly what they want. Watch for all sorts of federal programs to go the way of Alalbama'a state-funded social programs, i.e. in the crapper.

matters only.

Our national nightmare of budget surpluses are over! Yeah!

:grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh:

that it was the administration behind the release of those projections for a $450B defecit. Now they look responsible because they'd lowered expectations so much.

This is the first major positive surprise in the federal budget since Bush took office, at least as far as I can remember. Next year they'll be calling for $600B defecits and the media will call Bush a genious when it turns out to be only $400B.

Bush administration of overestimating the fiscal 2003 deficit and underestimating the 2004 deficit.

Another important fact about the '03 deficit is that does not include any of the $87 billion Bush has requested for Iraq. That will be part of the '04 deficit.

...Kobe Bryant? Please try to stay on topic. And don't forget to go shopping today!

explain the white house spin in lay terms?

"However, Bush administration officials noted that the 2003 deficit represented just 3.5 percent of the country's total economic output, below the 5 percent and 6 percent levels hit in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. The administration prefers to link the deficit to total economic output as a better measure of the country's ability to carry the debt burden."

"Yes, it's a big hole, but we're using a much smaller shovel than the Gipper did!"

Or eronomics...

The US's total GDP is around $10 Trillion, so this quarter's current account deficit is about 3.5% (or $350 billion). The total GDP number in the early 80's was lower, and the current account deficit % were slightly higher. But back then we went from a $1 trillion dollar deficit (1979) to a $3 trillion dollar deficit under Reagan. Now we have a $6.8 Trillion dollar deficit (up from $5.7 when Clinton left officce) and we now have *massive twin deficits* (trade and current account) that will ultimately unglue the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. I think we are reaching the "tipping point"...

In IMO - this administration is the most fiscally irresponsible gov't in our nation's history. Period.

the size of the deficit is more important to the size of the economy then the actual dollar amount. Just as a wealthyier family can afford a larger house because it has a larger income.
:kick:

of the deficit. The crowding out effect refers to the government borrowing to finance the deficit crowding out borrowing by businesses for investment. However, that rule of thumb really applies only to what are known as cyclical deficits and not structural deficits. Cyclical deficits are those which occur only as a result of occasionally occuring events such as recession or war. Structural deficits are more permanent in that there is no temporary spending to account for the deficit.

We now have a structural deficit and will for many, many years. Bush claims to have a plan to reduce the deficit by 50% by the end of his second term, but the plan consists of only two elements. The first is that the economy will grow sufficiently to increase tax revenue enough to reduce the deficit. The second is that the tax cuts will expire as scheduled under current law. The first may or may not happen in the next five years. The second certainly will not if the republicans control Congress and the White House.

Well, in a sense, one could say Bush* is certainly outdoing his father, eh? Surpluses to record deficits in less than three years. All for a few dollars more for W.'s donor class and to eventually gut Social Security.

Don't we WISH ???:):):)