As to the size of the deficit and the interest, in 1980 the interest on the debt was about $60 Billion. We are looking at $500 Billion after the Reagen and Bush Voodo Economic policies! That is over an 800 %(8X) increase which is far greater then inflation during that period!

Drmiler First Bush has understated the expected deficit by 50 Billion by only counting 30 of the 80 Billion for Iraq. He reduced the deficit by another 200 billion by deducting the 200 billion surplus from SS and Medicare. Using his so called revised estimate of 350 billion, after adding 250 billion for SS/Medicade and Iraq we are at 600 billion!

And just "HOW" does this refute the "Washington Post" article? I guess it DOESN'T! Let's try this again shall we?

From The Washington Post, headline is linked. More bad news for the folks that wish that the economy in the U.S. was tanking.... Buried in the Business section of the paper, rather than front page news, but still at least reported. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link>Economic Growth, Tax Receipts Combine to Reduce Deficit By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 2, 2005; Page D01 An unanticipated surge of tax payments may push the 2005 federal budget deficit as much as $100 billion below official forecasts, leaving Republicans to claim vindication in their theory that lowering tax rates actually boosts tax receipts. In addition, this week the Commerce Department reported a solid economic growth rate of 3.8 percent for the first three months of 2005, an improvement on the earlier 3.5 percent estimate and more ammunition for Republican boasts that their tax cuts are the cause of this performance. "Sustained, strong . . . growth confirms that our policies continue to boost the economy and tax revenues," said Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Budget Committee. But senior budget analysts, including the Republican who heads the Congressional Budget Office, cautioned this week that higher tax revenues may be a one-time phenomenon that in no way addresses the nation's grave deficit challenge. Much of the increase could stem from temporary factors, said CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist. The major corporate tax cut of 2004 provided a one-year "tax holiday" for multinational corporations to bring home overseas profits at a reduced tax rate, and companies may be responding aggressively. Also, a large tax break for business investment ended Dec. 31, effectively raising some corporate tax rates this year, Holtz-Eakin said. Finally, strong stock market gains last year, coupled with lingering jitters from the market swoon of 2000, may have produced strong executive bonuses and a rush to cash in stocks and stock options, other economists said. "I find it difficult to get as excited about this as some people" are, Holtz-Eakin said. For longtime champions of supply-side economic theory, the excitement is palpable. Since the political rise of Ronald Reagan, such conservative economists have contended that cuts in income tax rates and in taxes on investment income would generate economic growth that would in turn produce more revenue, possibly enough to pay for the tax cuts. The theory was popularized by economist Arthur Laffer and his Laffer curve. The government's take this tax season validates that theory, conservatives say. On a single day, June 15, the Treasury took in a record $61 billion. Through June 30, three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year, receipts indicate the Treasury will reap $80 billion to $100 billion more in taxes than the CBO predicted in January. Individual tax payments have risen 21 percent beyond their level at this time last year. Corporate tax receipts are 48 percent ahead. Despite slightly higher-than-expected spending, the federal deficit could come in at $325 billion to $350 billion, significantly better than the White House's $427 billion projection or the CBO's $400 billion forecast. Some Wall Street economists say the deficit could be as low as $300 billion. "The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value," anti-tax activist Stephen Moore wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Whether or NOT you took notice, they're coming in LOWER than what Bush said and waaaaay lower than what the CBO said. Now either refute this logically or find something ELSE to whine about!

Whether or NOT you took notice, they're coming in LOWER than what Bush said and waaaaay lower than what the CBO said. Now either refute this logically or find something ELSE to whine about!

How many times have you posted this with no response from anybody?

Whether or NOT you took notice, they're coming in LOWER than what Bush said and waaaaay lower than what the CBO said. Now either refute this logically or find something ELSE to whine about! How many times have you posted this with no response from anybody?

I really don't know ID! But I'll continue to post it until they can either find a way to refute this logically or find something else to whine about! They seem to be ignoring that's this is fact! Not fiction or someones opinion.

I really don't know ID! But I'll continue to post it until they can either find a way to refute this logically or find something else to whine about! They seem to be ignoring that's this is fact! Not fiction or someones opinion.

Facts is what they ignore. I think there are about three posts right now asking for proof of the allegations made against Bush, nobody has responded.

Drmiler: I learned from the best about killing the messenger.

Whether or NOT you took notice, they're coming in LOWER than what Bush said and waaaaay lower than what the CBO said. Now either refute this logically or find something ELSE to whine about!

The fact remains we are still talking about red figures.

Whether or NOT you took notice, they're coming in LOWER than what Bush said and waaaaay lower than what the CBO said. Now either refute this logically or find something ELSE to whine about! The fact remains we are still talking about red figures.

Like what was posted earlier, we will ALWAYS have red figures. How large they are is more to the point. Large=bad, Smaller=good! And since they're talking "smaller" I would imagine that's a good thing, yes?

Drmiler\

What about the $200 Billion from SS and Medicare. What about the $50 billion Bush did not count from Iraq in his projection? No matter what you say, we are spending more then 1/2 Trillion dollars more then we collect in taxes!

Drmiler\ What about the $200 Billion from SS and Medicare. What about the $50 billion Bush did not count from Iraq in his projection? No matter what you say, we are spending more then 1/2 Trillion dollars more then we collect in taxes!

Once AGAIN you miss the prime point! The figures stated are NOT Bush's figures! The figures are from the "COMMERCE DEPT." So what you are saying has absolutely NO meaning to the article posted! And so according to the "COMMERCE Dept." your WRONG again as per usual. Even the CBO admits to it, why won't you?

Once AGAIN you miss the prime point!

Like the China deficit is financing the war?

Is it me, or is Col G's defense in this "Debate" close to that of a broken record player.....just a thought...

If you look at OMB or CBO, you will find, the estimates only include about $32 Billion supplemental for Iraq. That supplemental Bush requested and Congress approved was $82 Billion. That adds $50 Billion. None of the estimates exclude the $200 Billion surplus from SS and medicare which means they ALL understate the annual Federal deficit by the $200 Billion because they subtract the surplus from SS and Medicare from the Federal deficit (Unified Budget). There is NOTHING defensive in these facts it is the difference between fact and the fiction some JoeUsers want to be true. NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID, WE ARE SPENDING MORE THEN 1/2 Trillion more this year then will be collected in tax revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you look at OMB or CBO, you will find, the estimates only include about $32 Billion supplemental for Iraq. That supplemental Bush requested and Congress approved was $82 Billion. That adds $50 Billion. None of the estimates exclude the $200 Billion surplus from SS and medicare which means they ALL understate the annual Federal deficit by the $200 Billion because they subtract the surplus from SS and Medicare from the Federal deficit (Unified Budget). There is NOTHING defensive in these facts it is the difference between fact and the fiction some JoeUsers want to be true. NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID, WE ARE SPENDING MORE THEN 1/2 Trillion more this year then will be collected in tax revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BS!!! Yet AGAIN when confronted with evidence that you are WRONG once more! You try to dismiss the shown evidence as baloney because it doesn't fit into your bash Bush agenda. YOU'RE the one that's full of it! And you STILL miss the point! NO MATTER how you try to spin this we took more in in tax revenue than was expected! That in anyone's book (except yours of course) means the deficit will not be as large this year as was previously thought!

--Dr. Miller, don't bother....COL will never concede.....

Freaking GROW UP Klink! Take this at face value. No matter what you do or say, you will NOT always be right. Actually I don't think you could be "right" if you tried! You're too far left.

I provided the data from OMB and CBO. The Unified Budget does subtract the surplus in SS an Medicare from the federal budget(that surples is running about $200 Billion in 2005) to lower the deficit. You are not saying I am wrong but the Fed is wrong!!!!!

provided the data from OMB and CBO. The Unified Budget does subtract the surplus in SS an Medicare from the federal budget(that surples is running about $200 Billion in 2005) to lower the deficit. You are not saying I am wrong but the Fed is wrong!!!!!

Look, the info WE supplied is ALSO from the CBO AND the Commerce Dept. This does NOT have a damn thing to do with the budget! We TOOK IN MORE taxes than were expected! Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Are you being intentionally obtuse

--"Obtuse!?" "Yes, Obtuse, rigid, an asshole" (a bit out of context from shawshank redemption, one of my favorites)

COL, give it up. You're arguing with jingos. They will never concede because, after all, the White House did comment on this stuff, and they did like what they heard, and they refuse to delve any deeper than what the White House has told them. It's a lost cause for you. It really is. I know that they will be proven wrong, and that is my vindication. There is no way that any turns of events will prove that dubya's policies are beneficial. Only when dubya steps down will they begin to see that. That will be my vindication.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for the jingos to jump all over this post. But, ya know what. I'm not going to reply to them. I have better things to do, like reading some good investigative journalism from some reputable and honest journalists, instead of listening to White House propaganda and hollow sound bites.

Ciao...........

zinkadoodle

Yes, it does seem as though a lot of people on JoeUser are not interested in facts just in defending Bush. They look at the annual deficit and want to argue it is a little better then earlier projections. It does not matter that even if you accept that new estimate as valid, we are still over 1/2 Trillion in deficit!!! They are living in another WORLD.

In another Blog the uptick in the Dow is sighted as proof Bush is doing a good job with the economy. It does not matter that if you go back to Jan 2001 and look at the S&P 500 it was 1300 and it closed at 1212 on Friday. The market is thought as a leading economic indicator. In four and a half years it has been down and the S&P was 1120 in Jan 2002, 850 in Jan 2003, 1120 in Jan 2004 and as I said, 1212 Friday. If the stock market can help predict the economic future, we are going no place good under the Bush economic and tax policies!!!!!!!!! I guess the S&P 500 must be a "Left" group that just wants to hit on Bush? Like the Dow, Russell and all the others-- Thoes bad liberals!!!

Now, I'll sit back and wait for the jingos to jump all over this post. But, ya know what. I'm not going to reply to them. I have better things to do, like reading some good investigative journalism from some reputable and honest journalists, instead of listening to White House propaganda and hollow sound bites.

That has to be one of the funniest things I have read today. You are one of the one's who make the most outrageous accusations with no proof or facts. I bet your idea of honest journalists is the DU.

Yes, it does seem as though a lot of people on JoeUser are not interested in facts just in defending Bush. They look at the annual deficit and want to argue it is a little better then earlier projections. It does not matter that even if you accept that new estimate as valid, we are still over 1/2 Trillion in deficit!!! They are living in another WORLD.

Another funny post. How many "facts" have been presented to you col? Why don't you respond to the posts that refute your "data" and opinions? All you do is talk the same thing, complain about the deficit. We know there is a deficit. We have been in debt before, and we will get out of it again. You judge and make all your opinions based on one things. Get over yourself.

If the stock market can help predict the economic future, we are going no place good under the Bush economic and tax policies!!!!!!!!! I guess the S&P 500 must be a "Left" group that just wants to hit on Bush? Like the Dow, Russell and all the others-- Thoes bad liberals!!!

The stock market does not predict the future col.

Hey zink,

Why don't you respond to this post?

Link

Hey zink, Why don't you respond to this post? Link

Because like "most" of the left, he doesn't have a clue as to what to say.

zinkadoodle Yes, it does seem as though a lot of people on JoeUser are not interested in facts just in defending Bush. They look at the annual deficit and want to argue it is a little better then earlier projections. It does not matter that even if you accept that new estimate as valid, we are still over 1/2 Trillion in deficit!!! They are living in another WORLD. In another Blog the uptick in the Dow is sighted as proof Bush is doing a good job with the economy. It does not matter that if you go back to Jan 2001 and look at the S&P 500 it was 1300 and it closed at 1212 on Friday. The market is thought as a leading economic indicator. In four and a half years it has been down and the S&P was 1120 in Jan 2002, 850 in Jan 2003, 1120 in Jan 2004 and as I said, 1212 Friday. If the stock market can help predict the economic future, we are going no place good under the Bush economic and tax policies!!!!!!!!! I guess the S&P 500 must be a "Left" group that just wants to hit on Bush? Like the Dow, Russell and all the others-- Those bad liberals!!!

You got a lot of guts and NO brains accusing us as not being interested in facts or in defending Bush. All "YOU" can do is bash Bush. You use whatever figures or stats that support your position and to hell with those that do not. When shown facts or figures by sources that are "just as reliable" as those you tout you either dismiss them as hyperbole or outright ignore them. Your problem is that we have already seen through your crap. And most on this board have seen it also. Even those on the left that are capable of intelligent, independent thought have called you on this.