"$477 billion budget deficit this year"
The CBO has chimed in:
"If President Bush succeeds in making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, the deficit could reach nearly $3.5 trillion over the next decade, with the tax cuts alone costing the Treasury $295 billion a year by 2014, CBO said.
Even without that change, the government's long-term finances have worsened considerably in the past six months, largely due to the war in Iraq and passage of the $400 billion law adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. In August, congressional forecasters predicted a 10-year deficit of $1.4 trillion through 2013. That figure has jumped nearly a trillion dollars since then. "
Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb
so...Will the deficit be a serious issue in the campaign? Or is Cheney right that Reagan taught us "deficits don't matter"?
"If President Bush succeeds in making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, the deficit could reach nearly $3.5 trillion over the next decade, with the tax cuts alone costing the Treasury $295 billion a year by 2014, CBO said.
Even without that change, the government's long-term finances have worsened considerably in the past six months, largely due to the war in Iraq and passage of the $400 billion law adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. In August, congressional forecasters predicted a 10-year deficit of $1.4 trillion through 2013. That figure has jumped nearly a trillion dollars since then. "
Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb
so...Will the deficit be a serious issue in the campaign? Or is Cheney right that Reagan taught us "deficits don't matter"?
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
so...Will the deficit be a serious issue in the campaign? Or is Cheney right that Reagan taught us "deficits don't matter"?
but this deficit follows one hell of a non-deficit time in american history. i mean, americans have short attention spans, but not THAT short...
what was i talking about again???
and it so happens that that's the order of importance to voters this time around...
1. The economy
2. Jobs
4 or 5. National Security and Iraq
Also in a recent poll it had Kerry beating BUsh 50 to 49.
it will be an issue if whatever democrat that gets nominated can make it one. it will also depend on the economy this summer and fall.
the deficit turned around so quickly during the econonomic boom of the clinton administration, that people who claim that the sky is falling because of the deficit may not get heard by ordinary citizens because frankly they've heard it before and it turned out to be "no big deal."
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
it's feeling like the administration is going to get a free ride, cause of the war on terror, and the iraq war too. but departments that have nothing to do with either of the aforementioned are running with budget increases.
it will be an issue if whatever democrat that gets nominated can make it one. it will also depend on the economy this summer and fall.
the deficit turned around so quickly during the econonomic boom of the clinton administration, that people who claim that the sky is falling because of the deficit may not get heard by ordinary citizens because frankly they've heard it before and it turned out to be "no big deal."
yup. And it only took a big tax hike on the rich to make that deficit go away....
Originally posted by groverat
Better to have high taxes on the rich than a huge deficit. Better to have a more efficient government than either of those.
Indeed. I would argue, though, that while most folks complain about taxes, they'd rather not deal with the consequences of slimming (I know you said "more efficient"...I'm just riffing off your point) the gov't, which would certainly entail either cuts in services or a shifting of the tax burden to the local level.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So far polls are showing that he's weak on the economy and jobs... and strong on natinal security...
and it so happens that that's the order of importance to voters this time around...
1. The economy
2. Jobs
4 or 5. National Security and Iraq
Also in a recent poll it had Kerry beating BUsh 50 to 49.
Dude, you're a real piece of work.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dude, you're a real piece of work.
Read the Jon's announcement at the top of the page.
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. I would argue, though, that while most folks complain about taxes, they'd rather not deal with the consequences of slimming (I know you said "more efficient"...I'm just riffing off your point) the gov't, which would certainly entail either cuts in services or a shifting of the tax burden to the local level.
Cheers
Scott
Consolidation of parallel programs and reduction of government waste would not result in any loss of programs and a huge reduction of expenses.
Originally posted by BRussell
"Waste reduction" ain't gonna do it. If you want to do it by cutting spending, you've got to go for at least one of the biggies: Health care, Social Security, military, and interest on the debt. Anything else just isn't gonna make a dent.
Right. Interstate highways. Medicare. Medicaid. Cut the size of the military in half (i.e. CLOSE SOME OF THE DAMNED BASES)...and thereby destroy the economy in some towns.
Originally posted by groverat
Better to have high taxes on the rich than a huge deficit. Better to have a more efficient government than either of those.
Actually, I understand that the long-term plan is to increase the taxes on the poor and lower middle class and to decrease what is left of services that benefit them.
send your taxes off to Washington and you can kiss them goodbye.
as for the "TAX THE RICH" mentality, that's why the middle class and poor are paying income taxes today. smooth move.
Originally posted by BRussell
"Waste reduction" ain't gonna do it. If you want to do it by cutting spending, you've got to go for at least one of the biggies: Health care, Social Security, military, and interest on the debt. Anything else just isn't gonna make a dent.
This is true. The most amazing thing about all the "tax cuts did this folks." Is that the tax cuts aren't even fully into effect yet and count for (if I recall correctly) something like 100 billion or so of the deficit.
I would be glad to suggest that tax cuts remain temporary and move back to their previous level after expiring if the left would be glad to suggest some serious cuts on some of these biggies.
(mzz...mzzz.mzzz...) Huh? What do you mean I'm not a legislator and have no f*cking power over this?!?!
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
"Waste reduction" ain't gonna do it. If you want to do it by cutting spending, you've got to go for at least one of the biggies: Health care, Social Security, military, and interest on the debt. Anything else just isn't gonna make a dent.
Exactly correct. Pretty much every government in memory has pledged to reduce waste. While it is a worthwhile aim - and an ongoing effort - it is not an immediate or large source of funds.
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually i'm a huge fan of shifting taxes to a local level. at least when you're paying out locally, you have a snowball's chance in hell of following where the money went.
send your taxes off to Washington and you can kiss them goodbye.
as for the "TAX THE RICH" mentality, that's why the middle class and poor are paying income taxes today. smooth move.
Shifting taxes to the local level is, I believe, a terrible idea. All you need to do is look at the economy of a small town in somewhere like Oklahoma to see the tremendous benefit of collecting money from all over the country and redistributing it where it's needed.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
This is true. The most amazing thing about all the "tax cuts did this folks." Is that the tax cuts aren't even fully into effect yet and count for (if I recall correctly) something like 100 billion or so of the deficit.
I would be glad to suggest that tax cuts remain temporary and move back to their previous level after expiring if the left would be glad to suggest some serious cuts on some of these biggies.
(mzz...mzzz.mzzz...) Huh? What do you mean I'm not a legislator and have no f*cking power over this?!?!
Nick
True enough. The deficit is also caused by the prolonged economic slowdown and also by the spending of the current government, which needless to say, has not been on liberal priorities. I had seen figures more along the lines of $200 billion of the amount was due to the cuts, but I am not sure that I am recalling correctly either.
The future tax cuts are, however, factored into future deficit predictions - and the future does not look good. As I argued with trumpetman some months ago, all of this means that taxes will have to go up. That's what happened after the Reagan mistake, that's what will happen after the George W. mistake. Probably George W. will not do this himself - so we are looking to the next President in '05...or '09 to clean up the mess of the current bunch of jokers.
Here is the linked chart, for those that like to see these things visually:
The chart is interesting, but the underlying numbers and analysis of the link itself are even more worth a read, for those who want to take the time.