POL - $368 Billion....wow, thats a lot

[Flasch186]

Here you go.....

pretty much black and white, pre war numbers are uuuuggggllllyyyy.


Budget Office Sees Deficit at $368 Billion

2 hours, 12 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit will reach $368 billion this year before any war costs are added in, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) said on Tuesday, according to a source familiar with the worse-than-expected numbers.



The previous CBO forecast called for a $348 billion shortfall for the 2005 fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

Due to a technical quirk, the latest number does not include billions of dollars needed to fund military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), and analysts said these must be added in to get a true picture of the red ink.

The previous forecast assumed $115 billion of war costs.

"As a result of this technicality, we think it would be prudent to add roughly $100 billion to the CBO's fiscal year 2005 budget deficit estimate," Lehman Brothers said in a research note.

The White House is shortly expected to ask for about $80 billion to pay for war costs.

The CBO numbers also showed an improved outlook for the deficit over the next 10 years, the source said. The agency forecast a cumulative shortfall of $855 billion from 2006 to 2015. That is far better than the agency's last 10-year forecast that totaled $2.3 trillion between 2005 and 2014.

But analysts said this improvement was due to rolling forward the forecast for one year.

"The projected 2015 deficit that is being added is likely to be considerably smaller than the fiscal 2005 deficit that will be tossed out because the budget rules require CBO assume that all the tax cuts sunset (run out) and this leads to a much smaller 2015 deficit," Goldman Sachs said in its research.

Republicans may point to the numbers as evidence that President Bush (news - web sites) is making headway in bringing the deficit down from a record $412 billion in 2004.

The White House last year predicted a deficit of $331 billion for 2005. It does not do 10-year forecasts.

Bush has promised to cut it in half by 2009 from an early-2004 forecast of $521 billion.

But Democrats argue that because the numbers do not include war costs, the cost of extending Bush's tax cuts and any costs involved in Bush's plan to move to a partially private social security system, they do not accurately reflect the outlook.

The dollar has fallen against other currencies since Bush's November re-election as investors fret about the huge budget and current account gap. Foreign officials and some Republicans have called on Bush to put his fiscal house in order.

Republicans say the huge deficit is due to a sluggish economy, costs after Sept. 11, 2001, and of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts for turning the budget surplus he inherited into the record deficit.

[flere-imsaho]

NPR had a story on this morning about this, which included figures (which I'm sure are widely available via a Google search) quoted by Admin officials about how much the wars would cost, before the military actions began.

At one time the Administration ridiculed one of their own guys (who soon after resigned - can't remember the name) who guessed the final bill would be $200 billion. Oops.

But hey, they'll greet us with flowers, right?

[chinaski]

Were basically at a 600 billion deficit. great. wtg Bush. Please some righties try and make this look good now, ok?

[Joe]

great news

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Were basically at a 600 billion deficit. great. wtg Bush. Please some righties try and make this look good now, ok?

Wouldn't matter if it was Bush, Kerry, or a trout in charge. Same old, same old.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Bah! We as a country should file for bancrupcy.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Wouldn't matter if it was Bush, Kerry, or a trout in charge. Same old, same old.

It aint the some old routine when Bush inherited 200 billion surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. By 2000, we had a $211 billion surplus - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation.

[Blackadar]

Those damn tax-and-spend Republicans.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Those damn tax-and-spend Republicans.

who else would it be? they control 2 of the 3 branches...

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by chinaski

It aint the some old routine when Bush inherited 200 billion surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. By 2000, we had a $211 billion surplus - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation.

A big part is that Clinton was in the dot-com 90s that had a roaring economy. When Bush took office, the economy was in or heading towards arecession, and 9/11 pretty much let the air out of that previous economy.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Bah! We as a country should file for bancrupcy.

WASHINGTON, DC—Plagued by late fees, high interest rates, and harassing creditors, the U.S. took out a debt-consolidation loan Monday, combining the nation's $6.1 trillion debt into a single, easy monthly payment.

"My fellow Americans, we have just taken the first step toward regaining control of our finances," said President Bush at a press conference. "Thanks to a joint arrangement between the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and E-Z Debt Services of Baltimore, we are finally on our way to freedom from debt."

As of press time, the national debt stands at $6,144,393,982,061.52.

Under the terms of the consolidation, E-Z Debt Services will repay the nation's estimated 45,000 creditors, a majority of whom are foreign investors, insurance companies, banks, and other privately held entities. In return, the U.S will make a single monthly payment of $9.26 billion, adjusted for inflation, to E-Z Debt every month for the next 70 years.

"We are proud to enter into this arrangement with the federal government," E-Z Debt spokesman Phil Rizzo told reporters. "We know how hard it is when you're buried under a mountain of bills with seemingly no way to get out. When you don't know where else to turn, E-Z Debt is there to help get you back on your feet."
The government first became aware of E-Z Debt Services on July 10, when Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) happened to see a commercial for the company while watching late-night television. Two days later, President Bush saw the same ad during a 3 a.m. M*A*S*H rerun.

According to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, Bush was sitting at his desk clutching a fistful of past-due notices when he saw the ad.

"He was holding all these unpaid bills, and tons more were piled high on his desk, including a three-month-old bill from Lockheed-Martin for $5.3 billion worth of jet fighters," said Fleischer, who was in the Oval Office working late at the time. "He raised the handfuls of bills above his head and shouted, 'I can't take it anymore!' That's when the ad came on."

After extensive meetings between E-Z Debt officials and the Treasury Department, an arrangement was reached which provided a manageable payment plan—with no threatening phone calls or military invasions from creditor nations.
Though the House Of Representatives swiftly and decisively approved the consolidation plan by a vote of 285 to 103, the Senate took longer to rally the necessary support, debating the issue for weeks.

"I was definitely skeptical about E-Z Debt, as were many of my colleagues," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. "I'd heard horror stories about those debt services. England used one to get out of a recession in the late '80s, and they're still paying for it."

"But E-Z Debt is different," Daschle continued. "Jim [Smoller], our E-Z Debt representative, sat down with me and the other senators and really convinced us that debt consolidation was the way to go. He was extremely helpful, taking the time to patiently answer all our questions. He even gave us a free quote."

Opponents of the plan charge that it unnecessarily endangers the numerous national assets offered as collateral. Among the valuable properties being put up are Yellowstone National Park, NASA, and the state of Alaska.

"Holding the nation hostage to a single creditor is hardly preferable to the original situation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) during a lengthy Senate debate on the consolidation. "Besides, I am confident that if we just trim a few unnecessary expenses from the budget and somehow get a little bigger GNP, we can climb out of this hole without help. We just need a little more time."

"Okay, so we mismanaged our money a little bit—who doesn't every now and then?" Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) said. "But that's no reason to resort to using one of those get-out-of-debt-now services."

Despite such opposition, ultimately, the Senate's pro-consolidation voices won out.

"In the end, everybody came to see that E-Z Debt isn't just another loan. It's a way to get out of debt without declaring bankruptcy," Daschle said. "Thanks, E-Z Debt. We couldn't have done it without you."


— The Onion.com

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by chinaski

It aint the some old routine when Bush inherited 200 billion surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. By 2000, we had a $211 billion surplus - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation.

Yes and if you look at the tax revenue for the Clinton years, you will see that they are very high. The high tax revenues were generated by the booming economy. Look at the tax revenue even from before Bush's tax cuts were put in place, and they are much smaller than they were during most of Clinton's term.

The Budget wasn't balanced, nor the deficit turned into a surplus by the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress. Those things were a function of the tax revenue. It isn't like President Clinton or the Republican Congress were cutting spending. They were minding the ship during a windfall, and no more.

I'm not at all pleased with the way the budgets are going, but at the same time since I was for going into Iraq, and understand that the establishment and expansion of the Department of Homeland Security has added a huge new burden on the country's treasury, I really can't complain too much about those particular avenues of spending. I believe that the current deficit spending is pretty well necessary, unless we are willing to cut back on domestic spending or raise taxes it isn't going to change.

I'm not satisfied, as Cheney is that "President Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter". At the same time I don't believe the current budget deficit or even the mounting National Debt is going to be a problem in even the remote future. We do have time to correct turn things around, but I'm not sure there is the political will to get it done. Some Republicans are simply hoping to hold out until there is another economic boom to bail us out, the truly conservtive Republicans are saying we should cut back on domestic spending, and I'm not really sure the Democrats are advocating anything as a real solution.


So yeah Half a Trillion Dollars is a pretty big deficit, and I wish it wasn't there. At the same time I don't see any realistic alternative, and I don't believe it would be any different if someone else were President.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So yeah Half a Trillion Dollars is a pretty big deficit, and I wish it wasn't there. At the same time I don't see any realistic alternative, and I don't believe it would be any different if someone else were President.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeel... I'm not convinced any other President would have spent 1/3 of a trillion dollars invading Iraq.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeel... I'm not convinced any other President would have spent 1/3 of a trillion dollars invading Iraq.

Hey. Get it right! It's going to cost a lot more than that!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeel... I'm not convinced any other President would have spent 1/3 of a trillion dollars invading Iraq.

I find it funny that you criticize this President for spending money when you said this:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you've suffered with a potentially life-threatening problem in your unit for a couple of years now, and have used any and all official chain-of-command ways to try and fix the problem (a problem which costs lives by the way), and you're then given the opportunity to ask questions of the head of your chain of command, what are you supposed to do? Shut up?

Respect for authority and the chain of command is all well and good, but do we really want an army full of mindless automatons, suitable only to be cannon fodder?

And remember, this isn't exactly a trivial problem we're talking about, such as, say, the quality of the food. This is a serious, readiness problem that costs lives. The DoD has known about the armor problem since the invasion of Iraq began and the first Guard units were deployed, and, until now, has done fuck all about it. In the past week we've heard multiple comments from manufacturers that they could have produced more than they have, over the past two to three years, but that the DoD didn't order them.

Obviously you didn't want to listen to the argument that armoring soldiers and vehicles costs money.

[Greyroofoo]

I blame the %51 percent of the Ameican voters who put down Bush.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I blame the %51 percent of the Ameican voters who put down Bush.

I thought it was more like 53% after all was said and done. You know a regular mandate. Well I think it was about there, because I remember a poll taken a week later that showed that 54% of the people were unhappy with where Bush was taking the country. It seemed striking to me that he could be elected while that sentiment was held. It also made me realize just how poor a candidate Kerry was.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I find it funny that you criticize this President for spending money when you said this:



Obviously you didn't want to listen to the argument that armoring soldiers and vehicles costs money.

You're not really reading what I'm saying. My positions are completely consistent:

1. I criticize this President for going to war in Iraq in the first place. Thousands (if not tens of thousands of lives) and billions of dollars could have been saved if he had not made such a stupid decision.

2. I criticize this President for woefully underestimating the time and the cost (in lives and in dollars) it would take to complete the mission.

3. I criticize this President for trying to cover up said underestimating by cutting corners (through inaction, but still) which have resulted in our soldiers being underequipped.


To sum up: If you're going to make a stupid decision, a decision with monumental consequences, at least try to follow through with it in all good faith and like a professional.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I say just wait it out and let future generations pay for it.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Those damn tax-and-spend Republicans.

Actually, it is those damn "don't-tax-but-still-spend-like-a-mutha" Republicans.

[Buccaneer]

Solution: Line Item Veto.

[Franklinnoble]

Solution: Bush twins naughty webcam.

[miked]

:bestideayet:

[Dutch]

POL - $368 Billion....wow, thats a lot

Whew, for a second I thought that we had signed the Kyoto Treaty.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Whew, for a second I thought that we had signed the Kyoto Treaty.

Or Carlos Beltran.

SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

In 8 years under Clinton, spending went up by a total of 30% (spending fell about 3% against GDP)
In 8 years under Clinton, revenues increased by a total of 86% (revenues increased about 3% relative to GDP)

In only 4 years under Bush, spending went up by a total of 24% (spending increased about 1.5% relative to GDP)
In only 4 years under Bush, revenues fell by about 10% (revenues fell 4% relative to GDP)

All data from this OMB report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf

The implications: sure the dot.com boom/bust cycle made a difference. But it doesn't tell the whole story. Even relative to GDP Clinton increased revenues. And even relative to GDP Bush has decreased revenues. And by any measure, Clinton increased spending at a significantly lower rate.

Don't buy the hype. When you cut taxes and jack up spending, you're part of the problem. When you raise taxes and restrain spending, you're part of the solution. It's not that complicated.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Follow up: Do I think John Kerry would have been better?

No. He would have been every bit as bad as GWB. He demonstrated no tendencies towards fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're not really reading what I'm saying. My positions are completely consistent:

1. I criticize this President for going to war in Iraq in the first place. Thousands (if not tens of thousands of lives) and billions of dollars could have been saved if he had not made such a stupid decision.

2. I criticize this President for woefully underestimating the time and the cost (in lives and in dollars) it would take to complete the mission.

3. I criticize this President for trying to cover up said underestimating by cutting corners (through inaction, but still) which have resulted in our soldiers being underequipped.


To sum up: If you're going to make a stupid decision, a decision with monumental consequences, at least try to follow through with it in all good faith and like a professional.

Ah, then I apologize. I understand your position now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Solution: Bush twins naughty webcam.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Don't buy the hype. When you cut taxes and jack up spending, you're part of the problem. When you raise taxes and restrain spending, you're part of the solution. It's not that complicated.

Agreed completely. I would only add that you can cut taxes and restrain spending and not be part of the problem. Unfortunately this President/Congress hasn't learned that.

My economic choice for the election was between a President who would keep taxes relatively low but spend ignorantly or one who would raise taxes and do likewise. Not a great choice, but I went with the former. (Probably out of selfishness )

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or Carlos Beltran.

SI

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Agreed completely. I would only add that you can cut taxes and restrain spending and not be part of the problem. Unfortunately this President/Congress hasn't learned that.

My economic choice for the election was between a President who would keep taxes relatively low but spend ignorantly or one who would raise taxes and do likewise. Not a great choice, but I went with the former. (Probably out of selfishness )

I don't think any President nor Congress has learned that. They are saved by booming economies that makes them "look good". Outside of that, I think the problem would not change at all in today's politics.