T1B

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:38 pm**

If we didn't have an administration trying to break spending records?

And what happened to the "Cut the deficit in half" bullshit Bush used to spew?

One question I do have is, at what point (if there is one) will the deficit stop being just a number and become a problem that we or our childrens children have to deal with?

Obviously right now there is no regard for the impact it might have in the future.

Gov't Monthly Spending Hits New Record

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Government spending hit an all-time high for a single month in March, pushing the budget deficit up significantly from the red-ink level of a year ago.

In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the
Treasury Department reported Wednesday that federal spending totaled $250 billion last month, up 13.7 percent from March 2005.

Government receipts also were up, rising 10.6 percent from a year ago, to $164.6 billion. That left a deficit for the month of $85.5 billion, a record imbalance for March.

Treasury Department officials said that half of the growth in outlays for March represented a $15 billion shift in payments for certain government benefit programs, including Medicare, into March rather than April.

Even though the deficit was a record for March, it was below the all-time monthly high of $119.2 billion, which was set in February.

So far through the first six months of this budget year, which began in October, the deficit totals $303 billion, an increase of 2.8 percent over the deficit in the first six months of the 2005 budget year.

The administration is forecasting that the deficit for this budget year, which will end Sept. 30, will hit a record $423 billion, surpassing the old mark in dollar terms of $413 billion set in 2004. The administration says the costs of the war in
Iraq and reconstruction spending from the Gulf Coast hurricanes will drive the deficit higher.

The
Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit will total $371 billion this year, and many private forecasters believe the red ink will be even lower, noting that the healthy economy has pushed revenues up sharply.

Through the first six months of this budget year, revenues have totaled $1.04 trillion, up 10.5 percent from the same period a year ago.

Spending during this six-month period totals $1.34 trillion, up 8.7 percent from the same period in 2005.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:49 pm**

You'd be much happier if you didnt constantly have Dubya in your head all day. You got him for another 2 and a half years. Nothing you can do about it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:51 pm**

You got him for another 2 and a half years. Nothing you can do about it.

another ringing endorsement.......

schweet......

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:08 pm**

Cicero wrote:You'd be much happier if you didnt constantly have Dubya in office.

ft.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:20 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Cicero wrote:You'd be much happier if you didnt constantly have Dubya in office.
ft.

...the freekin guy can't say NO to anything!

Letterman had a funny (pathetic) clip last night showing stirring speeches from Reagan anf JFK and then Dubya mumbling and snickering out something about onions! I almost fell out of bed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:28 pm**

He's still on target to cut the deficit in half
by the middle of the next President's term.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:36 pm**

Thanks for that reassurance, Mikey. :)

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:32 pm**

Mikey wrote:He's still on target to cut the deficit in half
by the middle of the next President's term.

If only the voters would give him a Republican Congress...

sin

Ronnie Rayguns

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:09 pm**

He hasn't vetoed ANYTHING. He's spent over 300 billion for iraq. You can't just blame Congress for the deficit.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:The deficit isn't growing. Nominal increases less than the rate of inflation are meaningless.

I'm also wondering why you failed to note that revenues are up well over 10%. I guess cutting taxes does increase revenue after all, huh?

Funny how that inconvienent fact just sorta fell through the cracks of your little snivelfest here.

...and the band played "Nearer My God To Thee".

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:54 pm**

mvscal wrote:The deficit isn't growing. Nominal increases less than the rate of inflation are meaningless.

I'm also wondering why you failed to note that revenues are up well over 10%. I guess cutting taxes does increase revenue after all, huh?

No, I noted that occurred, but if a train derails you don't say
"at least some of the cars didn't jump the tracks" It's still a derailed train.

And the fact remains that he STILL increased the deficit, and he set a new record doing it.

You can't spin that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:54 pm**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:The deficit isn't growing. Nominal increases less than the rate of inflation are meaningless.

I'm also wondering why you failed to note that revenues are up well over 10%. I guess cutting taxes does increase revenue after all, huh?

Funny how that inconvienent fact just sorta fell through the cracks of your little snivelfest here.
...and the band played "Nearer My God To Thee".

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:16 pm**

mvscal wrote:You measure deficits as a percentage of the GDP.

And during Clinton's Administration, that percentage was ZERO.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:09 pm**

mvscal wrote:
the largest deficit was posted during WW2.

No shit?

Maybe that was because it was a World Fucking War.
We're only fighting a badly overmatched enemy in a quagmire the size of California. Shit, we should have lots more $$ to spare.

You measure deficits as a percentage of the GDP.

No. YOU measure deficits as a percentage of the GDP. Any rational person looks at it in terms of $$ and its effect on the national debt. Ever heard that term before you mongoloid imbecile? If it keeps growing at the rate it has been it will eventually bring the economy crashing down around your ears, no matter how hard you cover them with your hands. We're already at the point where servicing the interest on that debt is one of the largest line items in the budget.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:37 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:If it keeps growing at the rate it has been it will eventually bring the economy crashing down around your ears, no matter how hard you cover them with your hands.
It isn't growing, dumbfuck...or can't you read? The nominal increase was less than the rate of inflation.

Your Chicken Little bullshit assumes a recessionary economy and decreasing revenues of which neither circumstance applies.

Are you really this stupid? I guess you really don't know what the term "national debt" means. How come I'm not surprised?

Even if the deficit decreased by a fraction of a small percentage of a fraction of a percent (based on GDP) the debt still increased by $423 billion. It's not going down you stupid fuck, no matter how you spin the rate of inflation.

So it's now increasing linearly instead of exponentially.

That should make us all feel a lot better.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:47 pm**

Actualy, the debt as a percentage of GDP was at its highest during the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Excluding the special circumstances presented by WWII, the post Reagan Era has given us our highest percentage of debt to GDP in the past 100 years.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:53 pm**

Here's a few facts and figures to chew on:

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 13 Apr 2006 is

$ 8 , 4 1 1 , 8 5 8 , 9 4 4 , 8 3 0 . 0 7

The estimated population of the United States is 298,508,832

so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,179.60.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.46 billion per day since September 30, 2005.

and if you wannna watch the numbers spin, go here:

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/your_debt.htm

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:28 pm**

Mikey wrote:No. YOU measure deficits as a percentage of the GDP. Any rational person looks at it in terms of $$ and its effect on the national debt. Ever heard that term before you mongoloid imbecile? If it keeps growing at the rate it has been it will eventually bring the economy crashing down around your ears, no matter how hard you cover them with your hands. We're already at the point where servicing the interest on that debt is one of the largest line items in the budget.

Actually, it may already be the single largest line item in the budget.

Essentially, there are four major components of federal spending: national defense and international relations; entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.); interest on the national debt; and so-called "discretionary domestic spending", which is a broad category encompassing everything from highway funding to disaster relief to student loans to farm subsidies to welfare, and just about anything else you can imagine. Of those four, in my lifetime interest on the national debt has grown at the most significant rate by far.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:23 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:So it's now increasing linearly instead of exponentially.

That should make us all feel a lot better.
Yes, it should. It makes a substantial difference.

Since we're on the subject, what exactly are Democrats proposing to do about reducing the deficit? Other than obstructing all efforts to do anything about it?

H.R. 4241: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Passed House (93% of Republicans supporting, 100% of Democrats opposing.)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4241

Maybe it was related to some of the other crap tied to it?

These are all part of the same Act:

Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005
Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2005
Caring for Children Act of 2005
Central Idaho Sustainable Development in Mining Act
Digital Television Transition Act of 2005
Energy and Mineral Schools Reinvestment Act
Enhanced Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2005
Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005
Federal Energy Natural Resources Enhancement Fund Act of 2005
Federal Judgeship Act of 2005
FHA Asset Disposition Act of 2005
Higher Education Budget Reconciliation Act of 2005
Judicial Administration and Improvements Act of 2005
Medicaid Reconciliation Act of 2005
National Geologic Data and Mapping Fund Act of 2005
Northern Nevada Sustainable Development in Mining Act
Ocean State Options Act of 2005
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005
Promotion and Support of Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Act of 2005
Rigs to Reefs Act of 2005
Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act of 2005

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:31 pm**

what exactly are Democrats proposing to do about reducing the deficit? Other than obstructing all efforts to do anything about it?

Produce all of the proposals for deficit reduction the Republicans have cobbled together and show me how the Dems were able to stonewall them.....

then show me anything at all wherein Bush actually vetoed a spending bill.......

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:32 pm**

mvscal wrote:
H.R. 4241: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Passed House (93% of Republicans supporting, 100% of Democrats opposing.)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4241
Your new found claims of fiscal conservatism are little too convenient to convince anyone of your sincerity.

What is it you people always say? Ah yes. "I question the timing of this."

Deficit Reduction Act?

Buwahahahaha

That's about as honest a title as Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" which would gut the Clean Air Act, or Randy Duke Cunningham - Honest Politician.

Better go running home now little lamb, it's time for all the sheep to be shorn.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:44 pm**

Do you really think you're fooling anybody by pointing fingers directly at Democrats as the ones who are to blame for the deficit?

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:14 pm**

and I'm saying there is a good chance they stayed away due to some of the shit loaded on that bill.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:30 pm**

Wrong. Your claim that the democrats would block a deficit reduction bill because they don't want to reduce the deficit is just too absurd to be considered.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:I'm not blaming them for the deficit.

I'm blaming them for obstructing even the most palsied efforts to deal with it for the sole purpose of partisan gain.

Exactly how did they obstruct it?

Democrats are in the minority in both houses, remember?

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:01 pm**

They disagreed with it because it called for excessive tax breaks for the rich that would eventually end up increasing the debt. The dems have their own deficit reduction plan called the 12 point plan, so mvscal is just waving the republican flag as usual.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:24 pm**

It doesn't matter WHAT it is. The fact that they HAVE a plan just proves they aren't out to stop deficit reduction, only that pork laden version.

Stop being so republican.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:37 pm**

mvscal wrote: ...meager 40 billion ...

Money grows on trees to welfare queens like you, doesn't it?

Just keep dipping your hand into the taxpayer's pocket, there's an endless supply.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:48 pm**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote: ...meager 40 billion ...
Money grows on trees to welfare queens like you, doesn't it?

Just keep dipping your hand into the taxpayer's pocket, there's an endless supply.

As long as we have continued unflation, a meager 40 billion isn't even 40 billion.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:49 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:I'm not blaming them for the deficit.

I'm blaming them for obstructing even the most palsied efforts to deal with it for the sole purpose of partisan gain.
Exactly how did they obstruct it?

Democrats are in the minority in both houses, remember?

They raised a point of order against the bill which required 60 votes to be waived. Essentially, it was a like a filibuster, blocking approval.

But when a bill that will give 70 billion in tax cuts to the rich wearing the coat of "Deficit reduction", they used a legal method to stop it.

But it wasn't stopped by them for the purposes of preventing debt reduction but to perhaps get a better version of it up for vote.

The Dems have been trying to have an open forum discussion witht eh GOP on reducing the debt, but the repubs just ignored the request.

Typical infighting of a divided congress.

Posted: **Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:57 pm**

Mikey wrote: As long as we have continued unflation...

Do you have to pay mvkrugman royalties everytime you use that phrase?

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:58 am**

mvscal wrote:Let's stipulate that everyone in Washington has done a horrible job in restraining federal spending, which is up 33% since 2001.

The GOP controlls all 3 branches of government. If they wanted to, they could stop this sea of red ink. How about taking some responsibility for once?

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:01 am**

Thing is, neither party is going to do it in the houses of Congress, and our President hasn't seen a spending bill he doesn't like. To even think of painting Bush as someone concerned about the deficit is delusional. So a pox on all of them!

What would really stop the bleeding (and in honor of April 15, I think it's a great idea...and not an original one) is to make every single taxpayer in this country write out a check for their taxes every year instead of withholding. If everyone actually had to pony up out of what they had already been paid for all the taxes presently withheld, I think we would have a whole hell of a lot more folks that would KNOW the phone number and address of their Congressperson...or even the name for that matter. And a lot more of us would be very familiar with the pork barrel projects and insane stuff that passes as necessary to the workings of our country.

Accountability is non-existent. The masses are happy when they get $1,000 "back from the government".

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:33 am**

Very true. I only pay quarterlies because I'd get fined if I did not, although most people would not be able to calculate the money due and thus owe more than they had available to pay on 4-15.

But then again, the people in control of the whole tax shitpile don't have to pay into SS, and they pay less tax per dollars earned than I do, so they don't care at all.

So fuck em. Some of my tax money earns interest over the year to off set the blood sucking a bit, but in the end, I am their bitch.

Can't wait to retire out of this shit. 8 more years to my self created and self imposed retirement, well ahead of the government one.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:56 pm**

If you're talking about Sadat, I think he passed in 1981.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:00 pm**

If you're talking about ANWR, there were seven Republican Senators who voted against it last year (and it passed, BTW).

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:06 pm**

So when do we start drilling?

heck of a question.....what's stopping them?

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:14 pm**

Felix wrote:
So when do we start drilling?
heck of a question.....what's stopping them?

The evil Democrats. Didn't you hear?

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:23 pm**

The evil Democrats. Didn't you hear?

those fucking lames are always gettin in the way of progress....

T1B

Imagine how good things might be...

Imagine how good things might be...