posted on October 11, 2006 10:35:50 AM newFederal deficit falls to smallest level in 4 years
AP Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years.
The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing President Bush an economic bragging point as Republicans go into the final four weeks of a battle for control of Congress.
Bush called the 2006 outcome a “dramatic reduction” in the deficit which allowed him to fulfill his 2004 campaign pledge of cutting the deficit in half 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 budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work.”
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.
Republicans are hoping to appeal to voters in the upcoming election as the party that champions tax cuts while casting Democrats, who contend that those tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy, as the party which would increase taxes.
Both spending and tax revenues climbed to all-time highs in 2006. The sharp narrowing of the deficit reflected the fact that revenues climbed by 11.7 percent, outpacing the 7.3 percent increase in spending.
The 2006 deficit was far lower than the $423 billion figure the administration had projected last February and also represented an improvement from a July revised estimate of $295.8 billion.
Republicans said the big improvement showed that Bush’s economic policies were working to stimulate growth and boost tax revenues.
[ edited by ST0NEC0LD613 on Oct 12, 2006 08:33 AM ]
posted on October 11, 2006 01:26:03 PM new
The prez would like us to think this somehow equates to the amount of money in an individual's pocket and therefore garner votes for the Republicans. But it doesn't. Most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 that benefit only wealthier
households haven't started to take effect yet. The repeal of the “personal exemption phase-out” for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, don't start until tax year 2006 and won't be in full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also doesn't begin until 2010.
Don't forget that the deficit is due in large measure to the war and homeland "security". Also don't forget that the books can be juggled like crazy. Here's only one example:
For nine days at the end of last month, from September 22 to 30, the government didn't make a single payment to Medicare health-care providers. The payments started up again this month, with no interest or penalties added. Why? Because October is the start of the 2007 fiscal year. All those payments can be added to the 07 deficit, making this year's look corespondingly smaller.
In this one simple accounting trick, the 06 deficit is magically lowered by over 5 billion dollars. If it happened with Medicare, why would anybody think it's an isolated occurrence?
Bush's political MO is pretty obvious after today's speech.
Forget that the Republican part is falling apart at the seams, and rife with hypocritical cockroaches all scurrying to avoid the light.
Forget that the people you voted for because you thought they were "more moral" have turned out to be scumbags.
Forget that we're mired in a bloody civil war we allowed to happen.
You've got more money in your pocket, what's to worry??
____________________________________________
Grow your own Dope. Plant a Republican.
posted on October 13, 2006 04:20:04 PM new
I think this is a really interesting article on the federal deficit. Considering we had a surplus when he took office, I don't think that a budget deficit of $247.7 billion is anything for the president, or anyone in the administration for that matter, to be proud of. So, does the federal government "cook" the books for the general public? Looks that way to me.
What's the real federal deficit?
Updated 8/4/2006 9:55 AM ET
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
The federal government keeps two sets of books.
The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.
The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.
Congress has written its own accounting rules — which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel.
Last year, the audited statement produced by the accountants said the government ran a deficit equal to $6,700 for every American household. The number given to the public put the deficit at $2,800 per household.
A growing number of Congress members and accounting experts say it's time for Congress to start using the audited financial statement when it makes budget decisions. They say accurate accounting would force Congress to show more restraint before approving popular measures to boost spending or cut taxes.
"We're a bottom-line culture, and we've been hiding the bottom line from the American people," says Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a former investment banker. "It's not fair to them, and it's delusional on our part."
The House of Representatives supported Cooper's proposal this year to ask the president to include the audited numbers in his budgets, but the Senate did not consider the measure.
Good accounting is crucial at a time when the government faces long-term challenges in paying benefits to tens of millions of Americans for Medicare, Social Security and government pensions, say advocates of stricter accounting rules in federal budgeting.
"Accounting matters," says Harvard University law professor Howell Jackson, who specializes in business law. "The deficit number affects how politicians act. We need a good number so politicians can have a target worth looking at."
The audited financial statement — prepared by the Treasury Department — reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA TODAY analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion. The difference is equal to an entire year's worth of federal spending.
Surplus or deficit?
Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.
The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.
In addition, neither of these figures counts the financial deterioration in Social Security or Medicare. Including these retirement programs in the bottom line, as proposed by a board that oversees accounting methods used by the federal government, would show the government running annual deficits of trillions of dollars.
The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.
Policing the numbers
The government's record-keeping was in such disarray 15 years ago that both parties agreed drastic steps were needed. Congress and two presidents took a series of actions from 1990 to 1996 that:
• Created the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to establish accounting rules, a role similar to what the powerful Financial Accounting Standards Board does for corporations.
• Added chief financial officers to all major government departments and agencies.
• Required annual audited financial reports of those departments and agencies.
• Ordered the Treasury Department to publish, for the first time, a comprehensive annual financial report for the federal government — an audited report like those published every year by corporations.
These laws have dramatically improved federal financial reporting. Today, 18 of 24 departments and agencies produce annual reports certified by auditors. (The others, including the Defense Department, still have record-keeping troubles so severe that auditors refuse to certify the reliability of their books, according to the government's annual report.)
The culmination of improved record-keeping is the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," an annual report similar to a corporate annual report. (The 158-page report for 2005 is available online at fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html.)
The House Budget Committee has tried to increase the prominence of the audited financial results. When the House passed its version of a budget this year, it included Cooper's proposal asking Bush to add the audited numbers to the annual budget he submits to Congress. The request died when the House and Senate couldn't agree on a budget. Cooper has reintroduced the proposal.
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, established under the first President Bush in 1990 to set federal accounting rules, is considering adding Social Security and Medicare to the government's audited bottom line.
Recognizing costly programs
Adding those costs would make federal accounting similar to that used by corporations, state and local governments and large non-profit entities such as universities and charities. It would show the government recording enormous losses because the deficit would reflect the growing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.
The government would have reported nearly $40 trillion in losses since 1997 if the deterioration of Social Security and Medicare had been included, according to a USA TODAY analysis of the proposed accounting change. That's because generally accepted accounting principles require reporting financial burdens when they are incurred, not when they come due.
For example: If Microsoft announced today that it would add a drug benefit for its retirees, the company would be required to count the future cost of the program, in today's dollars, as a business expense. If the benefit cost $1 billion in today's dollars and retirees were expected to pay $200 million of the cost, Microsoft would be required to report a reduction in net income of $800 million.
This accounting rule is a major reason corporations have reduced and limited retirement benefits over the last 15 years.
The federal government's audited financial statement now accounts for the retirement costs of civil servants and military personnel — but not the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit alone would have added $8 trillion to the government's audited deficit. That's the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning interest, to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars the benefit will cost in future years.
Standard accounting concepts say that $8 trillion should be reported as an expense. Combined with other new liabilities and operating losses, the government would have reported an $11 trillion deficit in 2004 — about the size of the nation's entire economy.
The federal government also would have had a $12.7 trillion deficit in 2000 because that was the first year that Social Security and Medicare reported broader measures of the programs' unfunded liabilities. That created a one-time expense.
The proposal to add Social Security and Medicare to the bottom line has deeply divided the federal accounting board, composed of government officials and "public" members, who are accounting experts from outside government.
The six public members support the change. "Our job is to give people a clear picture of the financial condition of the government," board Chairman David Mosso says. "Whether those numbers are good or bad and what you do about them is up to Congress and the administration."
The four government members, who represent the president, Congress and the Government Accountability Office, oppose the change. The retirement programs do "not represent a legal obligation because Congress has the authority to increase or reduce social insurance benefits at any time," wrote Clay Johnson III, then acting director of the president's Office of Management Budget, in a letter to the board in May.
Ways of accounting
Why the big difference between the official government deficit and the audited one?
The official number is based on "cash accounting," similar to the way you track what comes into your checking account and what goes out. That works fine for paying today's bills, but it's a poor way to measure a financial condition that could include credit card debt, car loans, a mortgage and an overdue electric bill.
The audited number is based on accrual accounting. This method doesn't care about your checking account. It measures income and expenses when they occur, or accrue. If you buy a velvet Elvis painting online, the cost goes on the books immediately, regardless of when the check clears or your eBay purchase arrives.
Cash accounting lets income and expenses land in different reporting periods. Accrual accounting links them. Under cash accounting, a $25,000 cash advance on a credit card to pay for a vacation makes the books look great. You are $25,000 richer! Repaying the credit card debt? No worries today. That will show up in the future.
Under accrual accounting, the $25,000 cash from your credit card is offset immediately by the $25,000 you now owe. Your bottom line hasn't changed. An accountant might even make you report a loss on the transaction because of the interest you're going to pay.
"The problem with cash accounting is that there's a tremendous opportunity for manipulation," says University of Texas accounting professor Michael Granof. "It's not just that you fool others. You end up fooling yourself, too."
Federal law requires that companies and institutions that have revenue of $1 million or more use accrual accounting. Microsoft used accrual accounting when it reported $12 billion in net income last year. The American Red Cross used accrual accounting when it reported a $445 million net gain.
Congress used cash accounting when it reported the $318 billion deficit last year.
Social Security chief actuary Stephen Goss says it would be a mistake to apply accrual accounting to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are not pensions or legally binding federal obligations, although many people view them that way, he says.
Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you go programs and should be treated like food stamps and fighter jets, not like a Treasury bond that must be repaid in the future, he adds. "A country doesn't record a liability every time a kid is born to reflect the cost of providing that baby with a K-12 education one day," Goss says.
Tom Allen, who will become the chairman of the federal accounting board in December, says sound accounting principles require that financial statements reflect the economic value of an obligation.
"It's hard to argue that there's no economic substance to the promises made for Social Security and Medicare," he says.
Social Security and Medicare should be reflected in the bottom line because that's the most important number in any financial report, Allen says.
"The point of the number is to tell the public: Did the government's financial condition improve or deteriorate over the last year?" he says.
If you count Social Security and Medicare, the federal government's financial health got $3.5 trillion worse last year.
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a certified public accountant, says the numbers reported under accrual accounting give an accurate picture of the government's condition. "An old photographer's adage says, 'If you want a prettier picture, bring me a prettier face,' " he says.
posted on October 14, 2006 03:41:40 PM new
See, stonecold, the liberals just CAN'T STAND if anything is going 'right' in our Nation.
It's like they're in some sort of 'fantasy' land....as they keep bringing up the 'SURPLUS'....when it was a PROJECTED surplus....never money 'in the bank'.
And they wanted to SPEND the surplus rather than give it back to the voters.
That's their game.....tax the people and if they're overtaxed, WHICH WE WERE, then they'll find ways to spend that too.
Sure didn't hear the dems yelling about all THEIR votes to spend MORE on what this administration did spend funds on. Nope....they were pissed that this administration wouldn't spend MORE.
And then they whine and complain about the deficit. Then when it's being BROUGHT DOWN....are they happy then? LOL NOPE....they're STILL whining just like they've done with EACH and EVERY cut this administration has TRIED to make. Notice they were the ones yelling/screaming the loudest when that was attempted.
No....they want to GROW government....spend MORE....and tax us to death. And they will.....should they get the power to do so. Mark my words....they've PROMISED to do just that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 14, 2006 03:44 PM ]
posted on October 14, 2006 06:07:10 PM new
A budget deficit of $247.7 billion dollars and fools like LIAR_K and STONEHEAD are bragging about it? If our National Debt wasn't so serious LIAR_K and STONEHEAD would be very funny backward people. Both these Backazzward fools have nothing left to say in defense of their failed Republican government leaders.
Who else besides me is betting the deficit figures will be revised after the election.
We have all seen the Republican tricks before.
Like who else besides me is betting gas and Natural Gas will go high again after the election.
Both Auto Gas and Natural Gas has doubled under the Republicans in the last 6 years. Now they are making a big deal that Natural Gas will be about 10% cheaper then last year. If the cost of heating and cooling home wasn't so serious their 10% less would be FUNNY.
The oil companies are afraid the Democrats (will do the right thing) and cut their MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of corporate welfare.
The oil companies are afraid the Democrats (will do the right thing) and enact a windfall tax on their records profits.
Why would the Democrats tax the wealthy oil,pharmaceutical,insurance companies along with the wealthiest 2 percent in America? Because that is where the money is stupid Stonehead and LIAR_K.
STOP THE WAR ON AMERICA'S MIDDLE GLASS GET OUT AND VOTE ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006. START TAKING YOUR COUNTRY BACK.
posted on October 15, 2006 08:37:45 AM newIt's like they're in some sort of 'fantasy' land....as they keep bringing up the 'SURPLUS'....when it was a PROJECTED surplus....never money 'in the bank'.
Once again Linda provides inaccurate information. For the fiscal years ending 1999 and 2000 the US government did have an actual SURPLUS.
In 1999 the surplus was $1.9 billion and in 2000 the surplus went to $86.4 billion. These are actual numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.
If someone wants to talk about budget projections, in the CBO report released in August 2006, the projected deficit in 2007 will be $286 billion, in 2008 $273 billion, in 2009 $304 billion and in 2010 $328 billion.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 15, 2006 12:20:03 PM newOk, it was a projected surplus. The deficit, is REAL
What do you mean projected surplus? We actually had a surplus for over a year.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 15, 2006 01:59:31 PM new
profe said, in part: "Ok, it was a projected surplus. The deficit, is REAL."
At least it's good to see ONE dem who can admit the truth on somethings.
Yes, the deficit is real...I agree.
But imo, the way it's being reduced, automatically and with all the spending this Congress has been doing, just goes to show that the TAX CUTS HAVE WORKED.
People have more money to spend, invest, etc....and the revenues are pouring in to the government....THUS reducing the deficit automatically.
Exactly what the President's economic team said would happen....and it HAS.
Now...IF we put the dems back in control, not only can we look forward to these tax cuts being TAKEN AWAY from us....but more tax increases. They've PROMISED just that.
Then we'll watch our economy go back to very slow growth or NO growth at all....probably ending up in another recession.
That's what happens when the dems continue to increase our taxes. tsk tsk tsk
Nope...vote Republican....the economy is improving...the deficit is being brought down...less are unemployed and we have enjoyed paying LOWER tax rates. To the dems that's BAD LOL LOL LOL
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on October 15, 2006 07:57:02 PM new
HEY MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA DON'T LET LIAR REPUBLICANS LIKE LIAR_K SCARE YOU. THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS THEY WILL LOWER MIDDLE CLASS TAXES WHEN AND IF POSSIBLE BUT NOT RAISE THEM.
THE DEMOCRATS WILL PUT A STOP TO CORPORATE WELFARE AND HUGH TAX CUTS TO THE RICH.
AGAIN IF POSSIBLE THE DEMOCRATS WILL LOWER TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS BUT NOT RAISE THEM SEE BELOW.
Pelosi Says She Would Drain GOP 'Swamp'
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Friday, October 6, 2006; 1:58 AM
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks about the economy during an address at Georgetown University in Washington, Thursday, Oct 5, 2006.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats in her fondest wish win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.
Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore.
HEY MIDDLE CLASS YOU CAN START TAKING YOUR COUNTRY BACK ON 10/07/06. JUST GET OUT AND VOTE IN MASSES AND DON'T LET THE REPUBLICANS SCARE YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. THERE IS FAR MORE MIDDLE CLASS IN NUMBERS THAN FEAR MONGERS REPUBLICAN. FEAR IS ALL THE REPUBLICANS HAVE LEFT, THEY FAILED ON ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE.
posted on October 15, 2006 09:18:31 PM new
[b]The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.[b/]
Hey Logansdad. Your spin is wrong. We never had a surplus. Yes, in 1999 and 2000, the government did take in more in taxes than the budget, however it did not pay off the deficit. You don't have a surplus until ALL of the bills are paid. This is one area the Demomorons constantly lie about. They say there was a surplus when in reality, there never was.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The new Demomoron motto.
posted on October 16, 2006 05:32:22 PM newHey Logansdad. Your spin is wrong. We never had a surplus.
Are you saying the reports from the GBO are wrong? You dont want to believe what the government is reporting is the truth? So the government is lying to the people. Did you even bother to look at the link that I provided that showed the GBO reported an actual surplus of $80 billion for the fiscal year ending 2000. No you rather believe some right winged mewspaper report.
You don't have a surplus until ALL of the bills are paid.
If that is the case then how do you know the deficit numbers you stated above are accurate. Do you know for a fact that every bill has been accounted for? Based on what you have just said the actual deficit can be a lot higher. Why don't you tell me how Bush is calculating his deficit number if you want to believe that number is so accurate.
All the numbers that were provided by the GBO were calculated the same way.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 16, 2006 05:34:14 PM newBut imo, the way it's being reduced, automatically and with all the spending this Congress has been doing, just goes to show that the TAX CUTS HAVE WORKED.
People have more money to spend, invest, etc....and the revenues are pouring in to the government....THUS reducing the deficit automatically.
Without the Dems in control the deficit will start to increase again in a couple of years according to GBO. Bush will do this all by himself.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 16, 2006 08:12:15 PM new
stone won't be back logans...watch.
____________________________________________
Grow your own Dope. Plant a Republican.
posted on October 17, 2006 08:13:22 AM new
logansdad once AGAIN proves his own ignorance about just which branch of our gov. does what. tsk tsk tsk
"Without the Dems in control the deficit will start to increase again in a couple of years according to GBO. Bush will do this all by himself."
The CONGRESS, NOT the President sets our budgets.....he just recommends areas to spend funds....THEY actually MAKE the laws and vote to pass the laws. LOL LOL NEVER the President. He just signs the bills.
GET A CLUE for a change, logansdad. Your total ignorance is shameful.
And maybe YOU can show us just where ANY DEMOCRATIC didn't want to pass more entitlement programs.....where they didn't want to INCREASE spending under this administration. LOL ....No, I didn't figure you could support your LIES.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on October 17, 2006 10:38:43 AM new
ONLY 22 DAYS TO GO BEFORE AMERICA CAN START TAKING THEIR COUNTRY BACK FROM LIARS LIKE BUSHY AND HIS SUPPORTS.
ONLY 22 DAYS TO GO BEFORE AMERICANS CAN PUT A STOP TO THE REPUBLICAN CLASS WAR AGAINST ITS MIDDLE CLASS.
ONLY 22 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WE AMERICANS CAN START PUTTING A STOP TO THE REPUBLICAN WELFARE TO INDUSTRY AND THE 2% RICH ULTRA AMERICANS.
ONLY 22 DAYS UNTIL WE AMERICANS CAN START TO MAKE A SAFER STRONGER AMERICA.
JUST LOOK AT HOW BUSHY SUPPORTS ARE TRYING TO (DANCE IN THE STREETS AND CELEBRATE) A FEDERAL DEFICIT OF 247.7 BILLION.
SORRY BUSHY AND HIS SUPPORTS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE NOT BUYING YOUR SAME OLD BULL ROAD ANY LONGER.
posted on October 17, 2006 12:10:08 PM newGBO reported an actual surplus of $80 billion for the fiscal year ending 2000
You are proving my point. We did take in $80 billion over our projected budget, but we did NOT have a surplus. We still had a deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
posted on October 17, 2006 07:05:48 PM newWe did take in $80 billion over our projected budget, but we did NOT have a surplus.
Again Stone you do not know how to read a chart. The $80 billion represents $80 billion dollars more in revenue than the government had in expenses. No where did the chart say the government had a favorable budget variance of $80 billion. The budget numbers are not mentioned at all.
Further more the article you mentioned in your original post says rge budget deficit for the fiscal year ending 2005 was $318.7 billion while the link you provided is showing a deficit of $7,932,709,661,723.50
Based on your latest numbers the 2005 budget deficit was a lot worse that what Bush and company reported in your original post. It is shame the link you just provided does not show the deficit numbers for 2006 so we can compare the two numbers to see how far off we are from the $247.7 billion that Bush currently says the deficit is at.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 17, 2006 07:24:23 PM newThe CONGRESS, NOT the President sets our budgets.....he just recommends areas to spend funds....THEY actually MAKE the laws and vote to pass the laws. LOL LOL NEVER the President. He just signs the bills.
Linda it would appear as if you are the ignorant one right now. The original budget request comes from the president before it is presented to the Congress where changes might be made. All Congress is doing is making amendments to what the president originally submitted. They do not come up with the original budget. Furthermore a budget is not a law. The President does not sign or veto the budget, just actual LAWS.
The following is a brief overview of the federal budget process, including:
the President’s budget request, which kicks off the budget process each year;
the congressional budget resolution — how it is developed and what it contains;
how the terms of the budget resolution are enforced by the House and Senate; and
budget “reconciliation,” a special procedure used in some years to facilitate the passage of spending and tax legislation.
Step One: The President’s Budget Request
On or before the first Monday in February, the President submits to Congress a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. This budget request, developed by the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), plays three important roles. First, it tells Congress what the President believes overall federal fiscal policy should be, as established by three main components: (1) how much money the federal government should spend on public purposes; (2) how much it should take in as tax revenues; and (3) how much of a deficit (or surplus) the federal government should run, which is simply the difference between (1) and (2).
Second, the budget request lays out the President’s relative priorities for federal programs — how much he believes should be spent on defense, agriculture, education, health, and so on. The President’s budget is very specific, and recommends funding levels for individual federal programs or small groups of programs called “budget accounts.” The budget typically sketches out fiscal policy and budget priorities not only for the coming year but for the next five years or more. It is also accompanied by historical tables that set out past budget figures.
The third role that the President’s budget plays is to signal to Congress what spending and tax policy changes the President recommends. The President does not need to propose legislative change for those parts of the budget that are governed by permanent law if he feels none is necessary. Nearly all of the federal tax code is set in permanent law, and will not expire. Similarly, almost two-thirds of federal spending — including the three largest entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) — is also permanently enacted. Interest paid on the national debt is also paid automatically, with no need for specific legislation. (There is, however, a separate “debt ceiling” which limits how much the U.S. can borrow. The debt ceiling is periodically raised through separate legislation.
Step Two: The Congressional Budget Resolution
After receiving the President’s budget request, Congress generally holds hearings to question Administration officials about their requests and then develops its own budget resolution. This work is done by the House and Senate Budget Committees, whose sole function is to draft the budget resolution. Once the committees are done, the budget resolution goes to the House and Senate floor, where it can be amended (by a majority vote).[1] It then goes to a House-Senate conference to resolve any differences, and a conference report is passed by both houses.
The budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, and therefore does not go to the President for his signature or veto. It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and is one of the few pieces of legislation that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
The budget resolution is supposed to be passed by April 15, but it often takes longer. Occasionally, Congress does not pass a budget resolution. If that happens, the previous year’s resolution, which is a multi-year plan, stays in effect.
Now I stand behind what I original stated. Based on the current budget information the deficit will increase in the next few years under Bush.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 18, 2006 02:12:46 PM new
I see stonecold can't come up with another round of deficit numbers under the Clinton administration or any that actually prove Bush is cutting the deficit.
I do not see where the other neo-cons are backing him up.
So Stonecold, ready to face the facts that there was an actual surplus under Clinton.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 18, 2006 03:06:28 PM new
logan. I'm so glad you decided to educate yourself by pulling up that info on how our budgets are decided.
NOW....if you would go to ANY 'recommended' budget the President has EVER submitted to our Congress....you will HOPEFULLY discover that VERY LITTLE that he recommends...and the exact amounts he recommends actually becomes part of the budget.
VERY little of it does.....when Congress is finished he either agrees or not. But THEY are the one's in CONTROL of our national purse strings.
Whether YOU wish to believe it or not. ROFLOL
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on October 18, 2006 06:09:35 PM newNOW....if you would go to ANY 'recommended' budget the President has EVER submitted to our Congress....you will HOPEFULLY discover that VERY LITTLE that he recommends...and the exact amounts he recommends actually becomes part of the budget.
VERY little of it does.....when Congress is finished he either agrees or not. But THEY are the one's in CONTROL of our national purse strings.
You need to do some more research Linda because you dont know as much as you think you do.
Following the procedure required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President presents a proposed budget for the coming Fiscal Year to Congress on or before the first Monday in February.
Based on the input of the Federal Agencies, the President's budget projects estimated spending, revenue, and borrowing levels broken down by functional categories for the coming fiscal year to start October 1.
The President's budget serves as a "starting point" for the Congress to consider. Congress is under no obligation to adopt all or any of the President's budget and often makes significant changes. However, since the President must ultimately approve all future bills they propose, Congress is often reluctant to completely ignore the priorities of the President's budget.
Are you going to tell me that with a Republican controlled White House, Senate and House, the Bush "budget" was not approved by his own party?
So dave was right, Congress is just there to rubber stamp Bush's budget.
I have yet to see any proof from you showing there was an actual deficit under Clinton during his last two years in office.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
