Budget deficit expected to reach $400bn for FY2006

[Snowguy716]

First take $3 for every $100 you make on your pay check and throw it in the garbage. Then you might as well take $3 out of every $100 you spend and throw it in the garbage so the place you purchase goods from doesn't have to.

Feel good in knowning that a massive % of the taxes that you pay will be going to interest on massive loans that countries like China and France give us to make up for our ridiculous irresponsibility and profound stupidity when it comes to anything to do with budgets.

The budget surplus/deficit has been astounding, especially since 1981.

During the 1960s the budget was largely balanced. Kennedy brought us from a balanced budget to a $7bn deficit. During Johnson's reign we made gains to as little as a $1bn deficit but with the Vietnam war heating up we were at a $25bn deficit by 1968. With the election of Richard Nixon the deficit disappeared in 1969 with a $3bn surplus before falling to a $23bn deficit in 1971 and rising again to a $6bn deficit in 1974.

Gerald Ford took the deficit to new highs. By 1976 the deficit reached $74bn. During Carter's reign the deficit shrunk the first 3 years to $41bn by 1979 before falling to $74bn again in 1980.

In 1981, before Reagan had a budget to do much with, the deficit was a "meager" $79bn.. in 1982 it reached $128bn and 1983 it reached $208bn.

During the next few years it shrank and grew gain but never got lower than $150bn (It reached a record $221bn in 1986).

Then came Bush I. During his reign he managed to take the budget deficit from $153bn to $290bn. Then in Clinton's first year in office (mind you, Bush still had influence on the budget btu with Democrats dominating congress).. the budget deficit began to close. The economy was still not great during 1993 and 1994 but the budget deficit closed to $203bn by the end of 1994, fell even furhter to $164bn in 1995, and almost closed to $22bn in 1997. In 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 we had budget surpluses, which reached as high as $223bn in 2000.

Of course you can attribute some of that to the economy, but the government showed fiscal responsibility during these times (I'm a liberal.. but I also believe in a balanced budget with a variety of approaches including tax rises and cuts to programs that I feel are unnecessary.. which is not necessarily social welfare programs).

Under Bill Clinton's presidency, he showed a $523bn gain from a record deficit to a record surplus. George W Bush has done just the opposite. With a $400bn deficit expected in 2006, he has pushed us down by $633bn.

This man calls himself a conservative. I call him a blatant liar.

Of course the last 6 years have been turbulant. The 9/11 attacks, high energy prices, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war on Terror, the war in other unknown places (that we don't hear about in the news), natural disasters, and a sour economy.

But you can't tell me that if Bill Clinton was still president, he'd let us reach a $400bn deficit!!!

Our president needs to get his head out of his you-know-where and learn how to keep a check book. If I were to write out a $600 check on an account balance of $233 \ my bank would tell me to shove that check somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm not all against raising taxes. But I certainly am for cutting fat out of the budget... like the President's salary and the salaries of all elected members of Capitol hill, reducing spending on defense (IT'S A BLACK HOLE. IT NEEDS TO BE REIGNED IN), and improving efficiency and sound investing in our infrastructure so that future "emergency" costs stay lower.

And, if we can't fill the commitments we've made to our budget in the past, then something needs to be done. We can't just keep asking the states to fill in the gaps (because some end up with huge tax burdens because we believe that the programs are necessary for the good of our nation.. and others just don't make up the difference, which leaves those residents in the dark)

Raise taxes. Make the rich groan and grumble. Make them pay the same in taxes that the middle class does. Make it just as hard for them to write out that check in April. If they've "toiled" so hard to make that money by selling stocks and owning businesses or whatever it is that they've done, then they won't mind knowing that their money is being spent to help those less fortunate be able to afford the products at their store.

I get sick of the whole "it's my money" slogan that seems to dominate Republican politics. Yes, your take home pay is yours. And while the money you pay in taxes is ultimately yours in the sense that the government takes it and the government is of and for the people, it ultimately is, and has every right to be, spent by your elected officials.

The old "tax and spend" liberal is a little less than positive for Democrats.. but the saying makes sense. If it were in business, the slogan would be "charge and spend" or "increase revenue and invest it somewhere else"

But then we have the republicans, which deserve the slogan "Don't tax and spend anyway"... which in the business world equals bankruptcy.

[monsoon]

But then we have the republicans, which deserve the slogan "Don't tax and spend anyway"... which in the business world equals bankruptcy.

The real republican mantra is "Borrow and Spend, let your children pay off our debts".

All of you reading this forum will be working to pay just the interest on the debt for a very long time.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

^ Yes that is the republican mantra as of late, the neoconservatives have taken hold.

The traditional conservatives do not think that way, this country is not led by true conservatives. They (true conservatives) would be appalled at the state of the country as it lays now.

I say we close the border, disband the department of education (it has failed to bring about a more educated America), throw out the UN, wipe out social programs (except for those who already paid in), remove the IRS and institute a flat tax, remove this new department of homeland security and integrate it with the military or FBI, and disband the Housing Authority Department. There are other things that can be removed as well but the ones I have listed are the biggest sinkholes.

--------------------------------------------------

I like the talk you give of income redistribution Snowball, have you not heard that the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes? Have you not heard that the lower classes do not pay any income tax at all but use a disproprotionate ammount of the services?

If they've "toiled" so hard to make that money by selling stocks and owning businesses or whatever it is that they've done, then they won't mind knowing that their money is being spent to help those less fortunate be able to afford the products at their store.

Yes but I mind the 'less fortunate' buying crack, lottery tickets, and beer with their money. How about they use the free money the government gives to go to college and get a decent job? Oh, that would take work. By giving these people entitements you are telling them that they are not capable of work. If these poor are buying TVs and cars before they get an education they deserve nothing from anyone.

I understand there are disabled people and they should be helped.

Entitlements and welfare just create an endless cycle of poverty, and the only way to stop it is to feed it no more.

[Snowguy716]

I also mind those that use welfare money to buy crack, lottery tickets, and beer.

But you have to realize that there are so many cases where people truly need the support of government in order to stay alive. I have a cousin (well, 2nd cousin, actually) who developed schizophrenia at age 11. His parents were extremely poor and didn't want to go on welfare (They were your typical old style republicans that believed success was wrought by hard work and hard work alone.. bless their hearts).. but they accepted that they couldn't take care of their son with their income and that they needed help.

Now my cousin lives in government assisted housing (it's housing built for people with workable mental health issues) with the proper medication to keep him stable and he functions in society.. he works.. and reads like a maniac. He spends hours and hours each week at the public library reading. Thanks to a sound investment by the government, we now have someone that can contribute to society who would've otherwise been left out to kill himself or die for other reasons.

Minnesota's welfare reform has a few problems, but has been largely successful.

If you are deemed suitable for work by the government (which includes all unemployed people that are not teen mothers or disabled or other special cases) receive the minimum welfare benefits... they pay for your housing, groceries, clothing, utilities, and transportation with a very small personal spending check (meant to be used for personal toiletries, etc.).

In exchange for this money, you are expected to spend 40 hours per week at a work resource center looking for a job. If, after 4 months, you do not find a job with the assistance of resource center staff, then you receive full welfare benefits but are still required to look for a job.

The only problem with this program is for people who can't find jobs because htey're underqualified. You can't use college classes as part of the 40 hours, so people end up having problems trying to go to class, study, and get 40 hours of job searching in, especially when they have children.

Otherwise, the system makes sense: Help people get on their feet so they can help themselves.

As far as cutting education: Bad idea. I agree more power should be left to the states/local governments in funding schools, but some federal guideliens need to be in place so we don't have huge irregularities in our schools. Our school system could do without the Federal department of education, simply because they mandate regulations and dont fund them. Our schools end up picking up a huge bill in administrative paperwork bullcrap that could otherwise be avoided with the same results: Smarter students.

But I understand your frustration... if it ain't workin', it needs fixin. I just think our solutions diverge from eachother

[monsoon]

I think the government should continue to help the elderly. They are having a difficult time these days with their promised pensions being eliminated and health care costs being so high. Same for the truely disabled and handicapped.

I think the government has a vested interest in helping students go to college. (Republicans just cut a school loans program)

But anybody that is abled body should be required to earn their living.

[dpbaker]

I think the government should continue to help the elderly. They are having a difficult time these days with their promised pensions being eliminated and health care costs being so high. Same for the truely disabled and handicapped.

I think the government has a vested interest in helping students go to college. (Republicans just cut a school loans program)

But anybody that is abled body should be required to earn their living.

Amen!

[Hotlanta]

I say we close the border, disband the department of education (it has failed to bring about a more educated America), throw out the UN, wipe out social programs (except for those who already paid in), remove the IRS and institute a flat tax, remove this new department of homeland security and integrate it

Sounds like a communist and dictatorship rule doesn't it? I think Bush's plan for social security SUCKS! You can tell he doesn't care about us kids who will have to deal with his decisons in the future.

[Snowguy716]

They don't call the baby boomers the "ME! Generation" for nothing, Hotlanta.

The Greatest Generation (born 1910-1930) worked their butts off to build this country into something great... they dreamed and wanted nothing more than a better future for their children and their childrens' children and so on and so forth...

Unforunately, the baby boomers have taken that great country and turned it into a festering, dying monster. Our country is being eroded from the inside.. and I'm not talking morals here. Look at our infrastructure, our schools, our healthcare, our corporations...

The median income for workers in real terms hasn't budged since 1973 (actually fell from 1974-mid '90s). Of course mean income has gone up.. because the rich have become much much richer... but the median (the point where half of incomes are above and half are below), hasn't moved.

There's nothing to be proud of there.

If something doesn't change soon, there will be nothing to look forward to. This "great economy" that Bush has created with his tax cuts has seen all but one of hte major airlines file bankruptcy. We're still adding low numbers of jobs that barely keep up with population growth, and most of those jobs are lower paying than the jobs that were eliminated in the first place.

Yes.. Bush can cry "victory" when 100,000 jobs were lost but 150,000 were created... but when a family goes from a stable job at $60,000 to "$8/hour at Wal-Mart without medical or dental".. I call it a tragedy.

Oh well... I'm not gonna change anything on this board. That's why you should always be engaged in your political system. Challenge your elected officials. Read ALL the issues and decide on your candidate through a broad range of issues, not one or two big "heated" ones... you'd be surprised how much better this country could be if people educated themselves on "the system" and used it to their advantage.

[monsoon]

Gee. I wonder if the Baby Boomers did a decent job of rasing their children, or is it going to get worse?

[cheeriokid61]

Well as I'm growing up with this generation, I can tell you that it is not going to get better. There is very little work ethic, and all people say is, "Oh well, there will be robots to do everything for us by the time we're adults." However, all of the people creating the robots will die out, and there will be no one to replace them.

Don't worry though, there are still people who will be there to lead the country. Not everyone has a bad work ethic.

[ironchapman]

It's a bit of good news here:

Bush says ready to use veto if Congress overspends

"I'm fully prepared to use the veto if they overspend," Bush told a news conference.

Speaking as it was announced that the U.S. budget deficit would hit $337 billion this year, Bush also said he would welcome legislation to discourage the use of "earmarks," or targeted spending that lawmakers often use for pet projects in their districts. Such measures are often added in secret to spending bills.

It's taken long enough, but at least he seems to be noticeably trying to curb the deficit now.

Also mentioned in the article was a five year bill that would cut spending on social welfare along with other programs by 39.7 billion dollars. this bill has passed the Senate, but it still has yet to do so in the House.

[TennBear]

It's a bit of good news here:

Bush says ready to use veto if Congress overspends

It's taken long enough, but at least he seems to be noticeably trying to curb the deficit now.

Also mentioned in the article was a five year bill that would cut spending on social welfare along with other programs by 39.7 billion dollars. this bill has passed the Senate, but it still has yet to do so in the House.

Iron Boy, the problem with Bush and trying to use the Veto to stop overspending is that:

1) He has never used the Veto.

2) He keeps asking for and pushing for things to keep ramping up the deficit.

3) The only things that he would consider trying to cut are social progams that would help the common man. Many of these have already been choked off.

4) His party already controls both houses and works with him to formulate the budgets.

5) He has followed the Reagan Formula that claims to cut taxes and hold down spending, while actually increasing it and cutting off other funding for social programs while creating laws that require the states to maintain them. Thereby transferring the taxes to pay for them from the Federal Government to the state government.

6) He has to pay for his War on Terrorism. It does not have any stopping point in sight.

7) He has to pay for the Katrina Aftermath and it can have a lot of riders. He cannot veto it and face the publicity that would be made of him turning his back the needs of those affected by the natural disaster.

8) He has no desire to cut the deficit.

Just will not happen.

[monsoon]

Also mentioned in the article was a five year bill that would cut spending on social welfare along with other programs by 39.7 billion dollars. this bill has passed the Senate, but it still has yet to do so in the House.

Indeed. Social Welfare includes Student Loan Programs, Student Grants, and cuts to Medicare/Medicade which helps the elderly. These will make it much more difficult to many students to get into college. Yet at the same time we are hemmoraging money on useless Republican pork projects and of course the Iraqi war that continue to bury this country in debt. Remember we were supposed to be in our 5th year of surpluses by this point. Ironman, you will be spending the rest of your working life to pay, just the interest, on this horrible fiscal policy.

Bush and the Republicans have absolutely lied and failed to make government smaller and cut government spending. The Government is spending more money than it ever has under any President. Why doesn't Bush submit a budget with no deficit? Answer: he would have to increase taxes on corporations and the rich that he has eliminated.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Sounds like ENRON to me. When Bush goes the USA will be flat broke.

[Snowguy716]

Don't worry, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank. I just feel like he's going to leave hte country in shambles. And if Hillary wins the election, he'll probably make photocopies of her face and draw mustaches on them and tape them all over the whitehouse.

[nashscan]

How many people here want Bush to stop spending, but want Amtrak fully funded?

[Hotlanta]

Iron Boy, the problem with Bush and trying to use the Veto to stop overspending is that:

1) He has never used the Veto.

2) He keeps asking for and pushing for things to keep ramping up the deficit.

3) The only things that he would consider trying to cut are social progams that would help the common man. Many of these have already been choked off.

4) His party already controls both houses and works with him to formulate the budgets.

5) He has followed the Reagan Formula that claims to cut taxes and hold down spending, while actually increasing it and cutting off other funding for social programs while creating laws that require the states to maintain them. Thereby transferring the taxes to pay for them from the Federal Government to the state government.

6) He has to pay for his War on Terrorism. It does not have any stopping point in sight.

7) He has to pay for the Katrina Aftermath and it can have a lot of riders. He cannot veto it and face the publicity that would be made of him turning his back the needs of those affected by the natural disaster.

8) He has no desire to cut the deficit.

Just will not happen.

What IC posted about Bush and his deficit is just propoganda by Bush. I don't think we will ever see the deficit go down till 2008 when we get a new "commander in finances."

[Snowguy716]

I have two words for you Nashscan: Defense spending.

It's going up 6% this year.. to $450bn.. and that's not even paying for Iraq.

By cutting defense 1% from last years total, we'd save $30bn.. plus you could repeal Bush's tax cuts and we'd be on our way on the fast track.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Cutting defense is not the answer. Defense is one of the few purposes of government.

Repealing the tax cuts and then slashing all entitlements would put everything back on track. We also need tariffs on foreign goods, enacting those would provide HUGE instant tax revenue, plus it would really stymie their rise in power.