The deficit won't have shrinkage for long if the dems get away with the TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE they are proposing...More money in the coffers means a free for all on spending...not that they don't have that already.
I did Gtech simply loves to make things up, he can't stand the fact that someone doesn't just jump up and down when any 'cough' good news is posted for his boy by him. He doesn't understand that during Clinton 'of whom I hated' republicans used the more appropriate accounting methods such as you discussed to show Clinton not having such great numbers. The more accurate accounting even though it's not what the government uses shows a much better picture. I will not be a hypocrite and change what number I use for myself to personally see the financial outlook just because the guard has changed, unlike others here. For some reason he equates that to me being disappointed, he equates that to me saying the deficit didn't go down at all, this is totally false. Why he makes crap up is beyond me. It comes back to he's got a serious case of either you're with me or against me. I will not change the way I personally look at the numbers. The government can have a shady way of accounting, that is fine, it doesn't mean I have to follow it. Those numbers do not show the entire picture, it's funny how those now in power love to use those numbers 'now' yet before their boy was in power they did not. Deficit going down, wow that's great news. Lets simply account for everything, all numbers, include any debts not shown, include Social Security, huge numbers that do matter. This mantra that it's the government numbers so nothing else matters is simply hogwash, with that attitude it's saying how dare anyone question the government, you're either with us or against us. No thankyou, I'll use the same numbers I used AGAINST Clinton, I will not change and be a hypocrite. Those who choose to be my guest, it would be nice if instead of lying though the actual issue could be discussed. The only disappointment I have is the hypocrisy, the fact that the way the government crunches the numbers has been shown time and time again to be off, that is my only true beef. But yep leave it to Gtech to show I'm on a 'side' and 'disappointed' He simply shows there is no reason to debate with him, he is so closed off and narrow minded there simply is no point. You could prove to him the oven is hot, he however will twist it to being not as hot as the sun and that you're disappointed that he didn't get a bigger burn. If you're not fully with him you must be against him as always.
yup. linksales and guerilla referenced that stuff at the beginning. When you take that into consideration it changes the tune on all budget deficits under all administrations. No matter who is in office, no matter what they say and to what they attribute govt budget conditions, it always understates deficits and calls into question their reasoning.
Exactly, and those in power always point to the government numbers, those not in power point to the numbers that actually add up. I simply am not changing to who's in power, I am using the same method in my decisions. That is not disappointment or taking a 'side'
Grim, Good job at making more stuff and proving once again, it's about Bush for you. I couldn't have asked you to admit it, yet you went out of your way to prove that it's all about Bush. I appreciate your delusion in trying to pretend the deficit isn't lowering and calling for different standards of measurement. The best part about that though, is you actually stick to that message while denying reality. Thanks for helping me expose your bias and delusion again. Excellent job! I tip my hat to you for the help I expect these things from earlpearl and guerilla. They have proven to be partisan hacks time and time and time again. Now you join their ranks. If only the gym had a workout program for the brain.
Hell I'd pitch in, something tells me it might take more than a machine though, perhaps some 'steroids for the brain' Sigh Gtech yet again I have said it over and over I keep the same method from Clinton to now, how does that = it's just Bush? The simple answer is it doesn't you go on making things up yet again. I also yet again never said the deficit didn't go down, I have not stated anything to that point, you are the one putting those words into YOUR posts. It's obvious for YOU it's just about Bush, anything and everything to make your case that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Forget about real numbers, they don't matter, go with any number that shows Bush is great. When you finally start to think and start to debate and not simply stay in your own little delusional reality please feel free to respond. Until then I would prefer if you stay in that little delusional world of yours. I know you wont but I can have wishful thinking ---- Just a few links for reading. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/05/12/67523/index.htm This story is from 1986, certainly can't be something 'new' just to go after Bush now can it? http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=342 http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_1/pozen.php http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm This is not a 'side' or anti Bush stance, this is an anti how the government portrays the deficit to us. But yeah we should just keep our heads in the sand and accept the false positive numbers, makes total sense to me. There are tons of articles on this subject, the government loves using the numbers it uses because they are artifically inflated to make themselves look better. Clinton did it, Republicans tore him a new asshole for it. Now the Republicans themselves have taken on the same message they once attacked. Granted it's harder to find the debates from Clinton erra, quotes, etc but some do still exist. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200002/ai_n8889448 What's this Treasury IOU's, but that's a new method just to try to make Bush look bad right?. The same method used by many republicans to show Clinton had no surplus in fact. http://www.theneweditor.com/index.p...ion-Surplus-The-Myth-that-Refuses-to-Die.html But I give in, I should change with the wind depending on who is in power I have no issue againt Bush, I have issue against how the deficit is falsely reported. This has alot to do with Johnson's 'unified' approach, I guess you like false numbers hey? But not now afterall now it helps your boy out. http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V38N6 I would think someone who loves this great land would discuss and try to change bad policy, not trump it when it works for their agenda, and use it as a method to attack when on the other side of the fence. But hey that's just me.
Dissatisfaction from traditional Conservatives and Republicans with the Bush administration and the reigning Congress is probably best seen by these figures-> The incredible ramp up and expenditures of the Federal Government during the years of the Bush administration. Spending went out of control. This data comes from the congressional budget office looking at actual expenditures from 1962 through fy2006. (ends 9/30 every year) It is interesting to look at the Bush administration/republican congress record versus the Clinton administration (first democratic congress and then republican congress). During the Clinton years from fy 1993-2000...federal govt spending increased from 1.4 trillion in 1993 to 1.86 trillion in fy2000 an overall increase of 26.9%. That is a little more than 3.3%/year. Spending increased. During the Bush period from fy2000-fy2006 spending increased from 1.86 trillion to 2.66 trillion. That is an increase of over 42% in only 7 years (I included an overlap year-> fy2000.) In any case that is a 6% increase/year. In any case 6% increase in spending per year versus 3.3% increase in spending/year. It was nice that the annual budget deficit (using govt acct. methods) dropped this past year. The overall budget picture over the last 6 years has been dismal though.