skinsfan913 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Record deficit predicted $2.4 trillion in red ink likely; Democrats see budding election issue THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jan 27, 2004 WASHINGTON - The government's budget outlook deteriorated further yesterday as the Congressional Budget Office projected nearly $2.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade. Along with the forecast, almost $1 trillion worse than estimated in August, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal watchdog said this year's deficit would hit $477 billion. That would be a record - the largest previous deficit was last year's $375 billion. The report envisioned red ink ebbing to $362 billion next year and receding thereafter. Still, it stirred up Democrats, who blame President Bush for squandering the unprecedented surpluses of just three years ago; and conservative Republicans, who say he has let the budget spin out of control. "He's been completely irresponsible," said presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards, D-S.C., underscoring Democrats' hopes that the subject is catching on as an election issue. "We can't afford four more years of the right-wing Republican administration," candidate Howard Dean said. "Republicans don't balance budgets; Democrats do." "These budget deficits as far as the eye can see are the predictable result of a president and Congress spending taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon," said Brian Riedl, who studies the budget for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Bush will send Congress his $2.3 trillion budget for 2005 on Monday. It will propose holding nondefense, nondomestic security spending to about 0.5 percent growth, with a goal of halving deficits by 2009. "The president has a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years, and that's what we intend to do," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Critics from both parties say the actual shortfalls could be even worse than projected because the budget office excluded the cost of extending tax cuts and other items that are set to expire in coming years. Lawmakers are considered likely eventually to enact such extensions. In addition, the report's numbers do not extend far enough to catch the brunt of the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will foist huge costs on Social Security, Medicare and other income-support programs. The national debt, the running total the government owes its debt holders, is more than $7 trillion, including money it owes its own Social Security and other trust funds. Yesterday's report, as required by law, assumed lawmakers will not change tax or spending laws over the next decade, a far-fetched scenario. That is because the numbers are not predictions but a neutral measure of current policy to judge the budgetary effect of legislation. The budget office projected that for the decade ending in 2013, the red ink will total $2.38 trillion. That was $986 billion worse than it projected in August and $3.7 trillion deeper than it projected only a year ago. As Bush took office in January 2001, the budget office projected surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion for the decade ending in 2011. The worsening since August was because of the costs of legislation enacted since then, including bills creating Medicare prescription drug benefits and paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report also projects lower federal revenue, partly because of lower inflation that the budget office now expects. WAY TO GO BUSH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 A surplus means the GOVT has more of my money than they need. The goal should be a small defecit every year. And while this is large, it is small compared to other times in history when correctly used in relation to GNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Said like a true spend and spend Republican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Actually Surplus could mean that government could actually fund programs that need it...i.e. Social Security which will be worthless to me...why the F*ck should I pay for it if I'll never see it.............also the government could provide more money for education and an efficient coast to coast public transit system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan913 Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Actually Surplus could mean that government could actually fund programs that need it...i.e. Social Security which will be worthless to me...why the F*ck should I pay for it if I'll never see it.............also the government could provide more money for education and an efficient coast to coast public transit system. Amen to that! Why pay for something we will never use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 How about we take that money and put it towards a kick ass Bike from American Chopper? Perhaps the worlds greatest bike ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Or the Govt could GIVE IT BACK TO ME!!!! Bufford, do you watch Monster Garage? Last nights was killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The real story is how the back tracking conservative will spin this one. Jeez we keep sacrificing the future for the present. Way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Or the Govt could GIVE IT BACK TO ME!!!! Bufford, do you watch Monster Garage? Last nights was killer. I caught the end before American Chopper. That show the $$$$. Paulie Sr. cracks me up. He should be a WWF Manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chet06 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Killmer 17....Do you finally concede? Re: How serious this deficit is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Actually Surplus could mean that government could actually fund programs that need it...i.e. Social Security which will be worthless to me...why the F*ck should I pay for it if I'll never see it.............also the government could provide more money for education and an efficient coast to coast public transit system. Or a surplus could be used to pay down past deficits and cut unnecessary programs like the National Endowment for the Arts. Originally posted by skinsfan913 Amen to that! Why pay for something we will never use? I agree... I don't think I should have to pay for education since I will never use it. Most likely I'll not have kids and they will have no need to use it. Even if I do have kids odds are I will send them to a private school. You don't get to pick and choose where you money goes, that is why you have to elect people who will do what best reflects your personal beliefs about federal spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 A surplus means the GOVT has more of my money than they need. The goal should be a small defecit every year. And while this is large, it is small compared to other times in history when correctly used in relation to GNP. Except that the government has a MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR DEBT TO PAY BACK! I love the double speak. Conservatives are all talke about 'belt-tightening' as long as it comes out of social programs designed to help, educate or rehabilitate people. But they're all for spending and running deficits as long as it's spent on killing people or imprisoning people ... or, best of all ... flying to Mars!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Well said Riggo :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Yep. Only Conservatives want to go to space. talk about a reeeeeaaaaacccccchhhhhhhhhhh. I do want to tighten the belt. I hate lots of Bush programs with a passion. Most of all the prescription drug plan. But the alternative was to spend even MORE money. That's the fallacy of the left. The politicos and pundits cry about how much the GOP is spending, but only offer to spend more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 and on another topic. Next week they're building a New York Jets bike on American Chopper. I'm kinda siked to see what they do. Should be $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Im also a big fan of Monster house. Although last nights was kind of weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I never saw it. What type of stuff do they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Same concept as Monster garage except in a house. The use a Theme each week and recreate a few rooms in that theme. IE they did a 70s house complete with a disco floor, lava lamp doors, disco balls etc. And a Castle house, with a draw bridge bar, and medieval trappings. Last night was a voodoo house, but it was pretty lame. Just a big voodoo head that opened to show an outdoor bbq pit. And some other "scary" things. Mondays at 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 so, they use an existing house and go from there? Ok....I'll check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chet06 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Kilmer17, Bush is going to Mars to look for WMD. What do you think of that INS Amnesty plan. I am sure you love that one as well. Bush is not a real republican but an imposter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Bush is a chump...there were a lot better Republicans that were running for president.....it was all about the money!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Neither are you chet. I hate the amnesty plan. I think we should close our borders and man them with the army. There's lots of things I hate about Bush. But the 2 most important factors to me in a leader he possesses and none of the Dems do. He is strong on defense. And he is willing to lower my taxes. Everything else is secondary. funky, what does that mean exactly? "It was all about the money? You mean (shock) the candidate with the most cash won? That shouldnt suprise you or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 DaFunky, Trust me, it'd cost you a LOT more in taxes to support an uneducated workforce. Whether or not you have children, school taxes are an investment in this country's ingenuity and productiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 yuck. I agree with Kurp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by DaFunky1 I don't think I should have to pay for education since I will never use it. Somehow I suspect you wanted to phrase this differently. (Although, you could be right.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.