In addition to my post with numerous stories (but not many from the MSM and there is a reason why) about the surge in Iraq working, additionally confirmed by AGS' topic about how the surge is working and British troops will be coming home soon.... The deficit continues to "shrink." No doubt, this too, may upset a few. Good news for American is not always good news for everyone. The Shrinking Deficit I can't imagine how it could be spun to represent doom and gloom, but I'm sure someone will try. Good luck with that Disclaimer: It is possible to be aware of good news without actually supporting, liking or even remotely admitting anything kind about GWB. America is not GWB; GWB is not America.
Fuzzy Bush math You're about to hear that the budget deficit is falling. Don't believe it, warns Fortune's Allan Sloan. The deficit is much, much bigger than you think. FORTUNE Magazine By Allan Sloan, Fortune senior editor-at-large September 4 2007: 5:21 PM EDT (Fortune Magazine) -- There will be lots of celebrating in Washington next month when the Treasury announces that the federal budget deficit for fiscal 2007, which ends September 30, will have dropped to a mere $158 billion, give or take a few bucks. That will be $90 billion below the reported 2006 deficit and will be toasted by the White House and Treasury as a great accomplishment. But I have a nasty little secret for you, folks. If you use realistic numbers rather than what I call WAAP - Washington Accepted Accounting Principles - the real federal deficit for the current fiscal year is more than 2-1/2 times the stated deficit. Why am I inflicting this information on you? Because there's been so much joyous noise about the budget emanating from Washington, despite the subprime mess and market meltdowns (which don't bode particularly well for future tax collections), that my natural contrarianism makes me feel like bombing the buzz machine. In addition, so many investors (and speculators) are fleeing to the supposed safe haven of Treasury securities lately that it's a good time to take a look at what's really going on with the federal budget. If a publicly traded corporation tried keeping books the WAAP way rather than the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) way, its auditors would be on the phone to the SEC before you could say "Sarbanes-Oxley." But this is the federal government, which operates its unique budget accounting system, regardless of which party's running the show. Making the deficit look smaller than it really is helps those in power, be it today's borrow-and-spend crew or yesteryear's tax-and-spenders. Let me show you how this works, using numbers from the recent update issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (I'm giving you the simplified version to keep your eyes from glazing over. You can find the detailed version in "The numbers" on the right.) We'll start with Social Security, which will take in about $78 billion more in payroll and income taxes than it shells out. The Treasury takes that cash, gives the trust fund IOUs for it, and spends it. That $78 billion isn't in the stated deficit. Wait, there's more. The Treasury will fork over $108 billion of interest on the trust fund's $2.2 trillion of Treasurys - but will give the trust fund IOUs, not cash. They won't count in the deficit either. Add that $186 billion to the stated budget deficit, and it more than doubles, to $344 billion. The stated deficit, you see, measures how much less cash Uncle Sam takes in than he spends. That's fine for gauging the deficit's impact on the economy, which is what budget experts generally do. But if you're trying to assess Uncle Sam's overall fiscal condition, as I am, you should count those IOUs in the deficit because they have to be paid someday. Now, let's move on. We end up with a total deficit of more than $400 billion by undoing another piece of WAAP ledger-demain: the $97 billion increase in Treasury securities held by "other government accounts," such as federal employee pension funds. Thanks to the magic of Washington math, that doesn't increase the deficit, even though it increases the government's overall debt. Don't you wish you could keep books this way at home? I worry that the happy news may produce unhappy long-term results by making politicians even less inclined than usual to inflict pain on voters by raising taxes or trimming future benefits to keep entitlements from overwhelming the public fisc. Budget office Director Peter Orszag warns that at their current growth rate, Medicare and Medicaid will devour 20 percent of our gross domestic product in 2050 - more than today's entire federal budget. Yech! So even though the deficit's smaller than it was and financial markets (for now) love Treasury securities, don't take next month's budget numbers at face value. If you do, you're setting yourself up to be WAAPed.
Ron Paul also authored an op-ed on this today. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?217295bb-da7c-404b-88e5-ff55a5f5cabf
When the substance of your comments are implicitly and specifically political and challenging....who can resist.....making mincemeat of them.... Of course the WSJ editorial was charged with politics also emphasizing large growth in tax revenues between FY 2006 and 2007 and attributing them to the typical tale of investment growth from cutting investment taxes. So typical. Its very easy to play with numbers...so lets look at those statistics with different numbers. But first.....kudos to LinkSales and Guerilla. They reference the real budget numbers that are reflected by Generally Accepted Accounting Methods. As LinkSales referenced the Federal govt plays with budget numbers that would not be accepted by any substantial large business in America. Federal Budget numbers grossly understate future debt. But that is an issue that all federal politicians won't touch regardless of party. But back to the WSJ article mixed with political commentary about the benefits of the investment tax breaks...and your follow up politically tinged statements and challenges to say something negative about it. This isn't negative but it is an alternative to analyse these numbers and reasonings. Just look at Federal govt revenues from all taxes from 1990 to the current period. Between 1990 and 2000 federal govt tax receipts went up in actual dollars every single year. (not accouting for inflation) Tax revenues grew from $1.1 trillion to over $2.0 trillion. That is a lot of tax revenue growth. It wasn't because tax rates roughly doubled during that period. It boomed because the economy boomed. Take the years from 2000 to 2007. During fy 2001-2004 tax revenues were lower in actual dollars than in 2000. Every year. In the last 27 years there was only 1 year when actual tax revenues dropped from the preceeding year. Then in 2005 tax revenues were higher than in 2000. Over the last couple of years they have increased substantially. What is the verdict per decade. Tax revenues increased around 8%/year during the 90's and about 3-4%/year during the period from 2000 to 2007. Hmmm.....looks like the big promise of growth through lower taxes took a looooooooong time to materialize. Meanwhile the economy surged during the 1990's. It is a period associated with higher taxes as the Bushies like to remind us. The early 1990's were a serious recession period like the early 2000's. But regardless overall tax revenues kept going up year after year....unlike the entire first 4 years of the 2000's. The 4 year period when tax revenues were lower than 2000 was an unprecidented period over the last quarter century. (maybe far far longer). So what do we have? We have a highly political editorial from the WSJ putting "happy face" on news so the Republican party can crow. Look at it differently and we have 7 years of sluggishness growth compared to the boom period of the 90's. Don't attribute growth to the tax cuts. That is political garbage. The business cycle determines the creation of jobs and wealth and ultimately tax revenues. When the cycle is strong there are boom times. When the cycle turns bad ....things go to pot. Is it good news that the anticipated federal govt budget deficit is lower than anticipated? Yup. Is it an ode to Bushie political, economic, and taxation prowess? Well over the term of the Bush administration--economic growth has been measurably slow compared to decades of prior experience. What will happen in the future? That is the big unknown. There are ALWAYS mixed signals. The summer looked scary with ominous threats about a credit crunch. September was a good month for hiring (and I assume anticipated growth). I guess we will see. The only thing I do predict is that every time...there is one piece of news that can be spun by the Bushie boys to make Bush look good, someone is going to tell it and spin it...and one of the "happy face" Bushies is going to publish it here.
The reason I cited the British troops were coming home was not because the surge is working GTech. I said they were coming home because we are all waking up to your lovers BS and this fake "war" that he is waging.
It's not that the sky is falling, it's just that your post came from an article that indicated that we had developed angel wings and are ascending to heaven. But the reality of a soaring deficit is going to be a reality for the next generation.
I find it pretty funny, when repubs were trashing Clintons deficit data they used the same exact methods do counter that the deficit was worse off than displayed. Now however the government version is as good as gold... Go figure.
Saddam invaded Kuwait, committed genocide against kurds and shia and funded terrorists. Ask Saddam if he believes the war was 'fake' when you meet him in Paradise.
Here is a hint. It's the same people who murdered a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran, and supported Bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Still stuck? Who is the closest ally of the Saudi Royalty, rulers of a country where they do not allow women to drive, and execute citizens for even proposing democratic elections? Here is another hint. The nickname of the former Saudi Ambassador was "Bandar Bush". How about, who supports General Musharraf in Pakistan, a dictator who led a military coup against a democratically elected leader?
You can't have great news, unless you are a democrat pretending to be a republican to vote for a libertarian under a democrat administration. The usual excuses; it's a government report (duh!), the numbers are made up, the source is optimistic I even put a disclaimer in, but apparently it went unnoticed. 2% poll increase is nothing but great news. Four years of continued deficit reduction is bad news. Who would have thought? I certainly did
Germany? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Sometimes, blaming America first can backfire when the cup of truth is filled with facts. When blaming America first, saddam had wmd. Other times, when not so convenient, he didn't. Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................ Who would ron paul blame first?