The federal government is still overspending, but it is making significant headway at reducing the budget deficit, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 will be about $161 billion. That’s still significant, but it’s a 35 percent drop from the previous fiscal year. And the deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2 percent, or about half the average of the past 50 years.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
44 Comments
wowanother eagle writer quotin the wall street journal fox news edition.
i guess you didn’t get the memo that murdoch bought the wsj and has changed it into fox street journal.
of any crap on fox or in the wsj is…THE TRUTH !!!!!!!!
i guess phill doesn’t have kids yet or he would look closer at the future of our country.
when you’re young nobody gives a shit about future debt, wars, and all that other crap.
it’s just all about walkin around with your shirt tail hangin out.
well, phill, unless you can say something other than… “gee the future looks bright” could ya try to think about the reality of life and not the rove bullshit p.r. agenda.
or, does it really matter to you ??
i read the article.
it’s so sunny i need sun glasses.
goshand the hint of any small problem was the fault of…congress.
those bastards.
wow, no bullshit, huh ??
wait a sec, did they take into account the $20,000,000.00 bush is spending in iraq EVERY hour????24/7/365.
maybe not.
it even looks bright after the ka-jillion dollars wasted in iraq and bush cut taxes for his best friends.
man those cons can gov or what?
I think the deficit will probably turn into a surplus next year. As for the Iraq war, that is not part of the deficit as that spending is “off the books” because it is a supplemental and not part of the regular budget.
“The federal government is still overspending, but it is making significant headway at reducing the budget deficit…”
Funny, the article basically said that revenues are up. I would not call that headway. It is only because Congress failed to raise taxes the last few years.
Just remember, the war money is off budget. So is what they are still stealing from SS.
Tax cuts! They work.
The numbers look pretty good when you don’t count war spending and what they’re stealing from Social Security.
Gotta love the inflated money supply. We’ll pay the debt with cheap money (dollars).
From the article:
“There’s more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history.”
——–
The way I read it, $150 to $200 billion a year or the deficit is for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would mean if we weren’t spending all that money in Iraq, the budget would be pretty close to balanced.
Revenues are way up. Bush economic policies seem to be working.
“The way I read it, $150 to $200 billion a year or the deficit is for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would mean if we weren’t spending all that money in Iraq, the budget would be pretty close to balanced.”
Outlander, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t spending on Iraq and Afghanistan “off budget”?
Avoiding the deficit
The Bush administration has chosen to finance the war by off-budget emergency supplemental appropriations, rather than include Iraq spending in the budget sent to Congress.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3603923.stm
Just too much good news than the Libs can stand.
Let’s repeat that sentence.
“There’s more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history.”
Goodness, Fox News is screaming about how great Bush is for the economy. How surprising is that? The story reminds me of 1984 where the people were proudly reporting the great increase in chocolate rations despite the fact the ration was actually lower than the previous ration.
This is the same Bush regime that said if we give huge tax cuts to the rich then we will be seeing huge budget surpluses. When that actually happens and we don’t continue to sell off our nation’s assets to foreign nations then the deficit reduction will truly be a success. Bush has failed up once again.
I was surprised at that too Snuffy. I think that spending on Iraq must be “off budget” for planning and approval purposes.
I surmise that the stats here are strictly incomes and outflows.
God Bless our great President Bush. He is fighting the nasty democrat big spenders and the deficit they began in the 1960’s with their “great society” welfare state.
Statutes will be made in his honor. In fact, I’d recommend his face bless the next issue of 1 dollar bills.
God Bless him!
Yes great news. Bush took a surplus and turned it into a $300 billion deficit, then his supporters applaud when he cuts that in half. Progress!
Meanwhile the world is turning away from the dollar and towards the more valuable Euro. Our massive debt has put us on par with the Canadian dollar. And don’t even think about the interest we pay on that $9 trillion each year.
Definitions and process deserve some study here:
“Off budget” does NOT mean that the accounting, after the expense, is “off budget” — that term simply means that it is not counted in the “budgeted deficit”.
The budget that every President in the last several years has submitted to Congress has NOT come very close to the actual accounting for income and expenditures, after the fact.
What the President submits is an estimate. What Congress passes is a guess and a wish.
Congress and the President can’t know, when tax rates are set and when Medicare deductables and welfare payment levels are appproved, how many will be:
employeddiemake a huge profit in a new businesssuffer huge medical costs
Congress and the President also can’t know, when budgets are submitted or passed, what natural disasters or international and defense expenses might come up.—-Having said all of this, the FINANCIAL community is well aware, down to the penny, how much debt the US Government issues, in the form of US T-Bills, T-Bonds, T-Notes and Savings Bonds.It doesnt matter if we make a “black box” CIA “off books” expenditure. This debt is recorded.There is no such thing as an “off budget” US Treasury obligation.Therefore, the “DEFICIT” figures, derived from the debt financing needs of the US Treasury, are PERFECT indicators of actual financial needs and economic performance.—–”Stealing from Social Security”???
Please, before you call ANY politician, from either party, a “theif” — tell me how you think Social Security does work, and then tell me how you think Social Security should work.
The “Social Security Trust Fund” is nothing but a method to transfer tax revenue from the SS tax to the General Fund.
The “Trust Fund” does not increase or decrease the liability of future taxpayers.
Christmas is comming. Please watch Fonda explain the “Building and Loan” concept, when the Christmas reruns start up again.
What do YOU propose government DO with that money? It can’t sit Idle.
Well I think establishing regular savings/investment accounts for each SSAN that pays into Social Security would be a nice start.
That would end those worthless IOU’s and force congress to either raise taxes to support the general fund budget, or cut spending. We know the later isn’t likely to happen, but at least 77 million babyboomers would have accounts with balances now.
Instead, we will wait for the government to come up with the cash.
Norway has a national savings instead of a national debt, and they seem to be doing okay. There’s no reason why we have to live in debt.
Hillary is now proposing a “privatized” SS account.
She will deny my characterization, but that sure is what it sounds like.
It’s not anything like a privatized SS account.
It’s a gov’t funded 401k type plan for people that don’t get one at work.
Has zero effect on Social Security.
The difference is, at work you have to earn it.
Econ, you are so damn funny, even when you are not trying to be. It was Jimmy Stewart, not Henry Fonda. At least this time you were wrong about something that did NOT matter…
LJ–
You meant “at work, you have to bargain to get what you’ve earned.”
That’s why busting unions = screwing workers.
The WSJ being full of economists etc needs to explain how the deficit can keep “going down” and the national debt continues to explode.
It’s almost doubled what it was under Clinton, from 5 Trillion to approaching 10 Trillion.
Congress has raised the debt “cap” something like half a dozen times since Worst. President. Ever. seized power.
Doesn’t add up that the deficit can go down and debt can go up so fast. Something is getting left out of this editorial . . .
–
You meant “at work, you have to bargain to get what you’ve earned.”
That’s why busting unions = screwing workers.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 10, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I don;t have a union. I have a 401k. The company matches my contribution 50%. It is considered part of my wage, or the company’s cost to employ me.
Bush’s tax cuts stimulating the economy. Historical records being set.
Hillary pushing for privatizing SS.
Al Gore exposed as a liar in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
Pelosi picked the wrong poster child for her SCHIP poster. $40,000 a year for public school tuition. Wish I was that poor.
How much better could the news get today??
Everything you posted is inaccurate, Ksgrm.
If that makes you happy, continue your fantasy.
Quit ruining America in the process however.
Yes Cap they did leave out the part about Bush inheriting Clinton’s recession and also having an attack on the very heart of our economic base with the Towers falling in the first year of his prez and still he is able to post 22 months of economic growth. Can you can’t get it all in but thanks for caring.
Yes, you’ve indirectly benefitted from the hard work that unions have earned already, LJ.
Thanks for your gratitude.
Cap sorry you don’t agree with the facts. Can you show me where they were proven to be wrong. All of the major media seem to think the facts speak for themselves.
You meant “at work, you have to bargain to get what you’ve earned.” That’s why busting unions = screwing workers.Posted by: CapnAmerica
No I bargain for my salary for what I WILL earn. I do that periodically.
What’s a union? Isn’t that one of those old fashion organizations which used to be benficial, but are now a rare breed. Only something like 16% of Americans are now union workers?
Anyway, I get a great wage and 401K. I earn every penny of it.
Nanny socialist government does not GIVE me a dime. In fact, they take money away – to give to someone Nanny feels deserves my hard earned money, more than I do.
Robin Hood rides again.
Yes, you’ve indirectly benefitted from the hard work that unions have earned already, LJ.
Thanks for your gratitude.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 10, 2007 at 01:08 PM
The union didn;t give me shit. I earned what I get by working full time, raising my young family, AND going to college. I negotiate by having the economic freedom to leave this job and go some where else if I don;t like what I’m getting or the way I am treated. My not needing a mommy to take care of me. By having marketable skills.
By upgrading those skills as old skills are less necessary. By actually considering the consequences of my choices. I earned my economic freedom. Not some union
Doesn’t add up that the deficit can go down and debt can go up so fast. Something is getting left out of this editorial . . .Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 10, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Yeah, they left out the fact that Bush has been paying for Iraq “off budget.” Bush’s “budget” is a damned lie.
Okay, LJ, you may feel more like a man believing those myths, but your uninformed.
The 40 hour week, what health care we have, pensions and savings plans were all accomplished by once-strong unions.
Your company has to offer them to you because other companies have unions and offer those benefits and would steal the best employees away otherwise.
As an individual, you are about as important to your company as a bushel of wheat to a flour mill.
Organized by collective bargaining, you could be part of a mighty army.
You’d rather believe the comfortable myth that “I did it all, my way.”
Sh*t, you didn’t even pay your own tuition. The taxpayer paid most of it for you . . .
Oh, my bad. It was “American Way” not LJ that I was responding to.
I should have known LJ wouldn’t post something that arrogant.
“Yeah, they left out the fact that Bush has been paying for Iraq “off budget.” Bush’s “budget” is a damned lie.”
Bushes’s submitted budget may not reflect Iraq’s costs, but the budget deficit figures sure do.
It’s great news for America, not so good for the Democrats, who are losing the economy as an issue.
As I wrote here several months back about the success of the lower taxes. Revenues are soaring and kicking butt.
The Iraq war is considered in the budget.
Why else are the Democritic Congressman yelling about withdrawing funds for the Iraq war?
It is funded and included in the budget, else Congress wouldn’t have a say in it.
From http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651
Saturday, June 18, 2005Editorial: Off-budget accounting for Iraq
By refusing to estimate the costs for the war in Iraq, Bush makes his budget deficits look much smaller than they actually are.
[snip]
But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn’t contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn’t operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.
[snip]
Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.
Capn
YES IT DOES!
Social Security currently takes back part of your SS earnings, $1.00 for every $2.00 or $1.00 for every $3.00, depending on some variables, if you take early retirement, based on income.
For the rest of your LIFE SS benefits are now TAXED.
This means that ANYTHING that increases your income in retirement will have the net effect of increasing your taxes or decreasing your benefits by the amount of the tax.
We are heading for a SS system where the benefits are 100% taxable, which will pretty much mean that only the truly poor will get full benefit from 100% of their SS payments.
Moreover, Hillary is NOT telling people to put this money, a government program, mind you, into government bonds.
It is a privatized retirement program, just like Bush proposed.
Also, the “poor” get back their SS or FICA taxes, as an “Earned Income Credit.”
If Hillary’s program has the net effect of contributing to individualized “private accounts” without affecting their SS taxation, that really isnt “fair” is it?
In the corporate world, the Corporate contribution to 401(k) plans is not FICA taxable, but the EMPLOYEE portion is.
So, it is NOT possible to do anything in this area without an impact on SS, and Hillary is opening the door for privatization, down the road.
farmgirl,good for you, it was Jimmy Stewart.Thanks for the correction.
Good point Econ101.
If the $5000 baby bonus or the $1000 retirement bonus is suppose to be into a 401K (private markets) and help people jump start their lives or retirement, then why not have people use their social security the same way?
Privatizing social security isn’t going to happen. The Left have their hands wrapped around the throats of the elderly and they want to keep it that way. It’s all about power and having people dependent on the government.
TomRead carefully:
Debt is NEVER “off budget” — everything the government borrows is PUBLIC!
CapnUnions fought hard against 401(k) plans.Unions wanted to “negotiate” for defined benefit plans, the old fashioned pensions.Unions did not like defined contribution plans because they were afraid those plans might make capitalists out of the working masses that Unions wanted to control.