Largest US deficit ever proposed for 2007

flavio

Banned
Budget takes money from education and the poor, elderly, infirm, and disabled and gives it to the rich or uses it to help kill people as is standard Bush fare. :yawn:

President Bush proposed a $2.77 trillion budget for 2007 Monday that cuts domestic programs from Medicare to community policing while bolstering security spending, even as he seeks to tame a soaring deficit.

Facing election-year pressure from conservative Republicans to get tougher on spending, Bush asked Congress to virtually freeze discretionary programs outside national security.

Bush proposed a record $439.3 billion defense budget for 2007 aimed at fighting both unconventional terrorism and major conflicts with other nations if necessary. But the Pentagon budget did not include tens of billions of dollars in proposed new financing for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the White House will seek separately.

At the same time the president renewed his call for Congress to make his tax cuts permanent even as his blueprint projected a widening of the federal deficit to $423 billion this year, up more than $100 billion from fiscal 2005.
[snip]

[Nine of the 15 Cabinet agencies would see cuts in fiscal 2007, including justice, transportation and education. Among those targeted by the budget knife are community policing; a program to combat violence against women; and vocational education.

The budget aims to keep overall growth in discretionary spending below the inflation rate, which was 3.4 percent in 2005. Bush proposed to scale back or abolish 141 discretionary programs that he says are performing poorly. Discretionary programs are those that Congress funds anew each year.

Bush also hopes to squeeze $65 billion in savings over five years from mandatory programs, including Medicare, the nation's health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, farm supports and pension and other labor-related programs.

Bush inherited a budget surplus from the Clinton administration, but that quickly turned around and the deficit soared on his watch, reaching a record $413 billion in fiscal 2004.
[snip]

Source....
Historical Deficit numbers since 1999 (in billions, unadjusted), % of GDP
1999: 125.6, 1.4%
2000: 236.2, 2.4%
2001: 128.2, 1.3%
2002: -157.8, -1.5%
2003: -377.6, -3.5%
2004: -412.7, -3.6%
2005: -318.3, -2.6%
Proposed: -423, -3.3%*
2009 Bush goal: -208

* assumed a real GDP growth of 1%-3%, nominal growth of 4-7%.
 
flavio said:
Budget takes money education and the poor, elderly, infirm, and disabled and gives it to the rich or uses it to help kill people as is standard Bush fare. :yawn:
and how many people do you know that abuse the system as is?
 
nobody in gov wants smaller gov. Just different levels of growth.

edit: Reps not in gov, really do want smaller.
 
BTW the "deficit" is just just numbers running. Everybody knows the gov prints their own money.
The numbers don't mean just a whole lot. Just an "attempt" at accounting.

Edit again: oops I should have said most people. Not everyone knows, or will acknowledge.
 
catocom said:
and how many people do you know that abuse the system as is?
Let's see....oil execs, the president, appointees, CEOs, Lobbyists, Corporations....shit I guess there's a bunch of them.

the "deficit" is just just numbers running. Everybody knows the gov prints their own money.
The numbers don't mean just a whole lot. Just an "attempt" at accounting.
These practice of blindly ignoring and discounting anything Bush does are getting really funny. I can see all sorts of possibilities here...

Headline: "Bush Anally Rapes Busload of Disabled Kids"

neocon1: Kids? Yeah right, a couple of them were 17.
neocon2: Notice how the left always exaggerates...the bus was only 3/4 full.
neocon3: Are you gullible enough to think nobody has had anal sex with a minor before?
neocon4: Bush didn't even finish with all of them.
neocon5: I don't see how spinal menengitus qualifies as "disabled".
 
flavio said:
Let's see....oil execs, the president, appointees, CEOs, Lobbyists, Corporations....shit I guess there's a bunch of them.
yep. and don't forget the everyday spongers ...
(that really don't have that back problem they are drawing on) in that last part...
I rest my case.
 
flavio said:
Let's see....oil execs, the president, appointees, CEOs, Lobbyists, Corporations....shit I guess there's a bunch of them.

These practice of blindly ignoring and discounting anything Bush does are getting really funny. I can see all sorts of possibilities here...

Headline: "Bush Anally Rapes Busload of Disabled Kids"

neocon1: Kids? Yeah right, a couple of them were 17.
neocon2: Notice how the left always exaggerates...the bus was only 3/4 full.
neocon3: Are you gullible enough to think nobody has had anal sex with a minor before?
neocon4: Bush didn't even finish with all of them.
neocon5: I don't see how spinal menengitus qualifies as "disabled".
We've got a standing ruling against using the phrase NEOCON. Please edit your post.
 
I think that only applies in directly calling someone a neocon, nazi, commie... et al.; Its not so much of a problem as a 3rd party descriptor... although I may be wrong.
 
unclehobart said:
I think that only applies in directly calling someone a neocon, nazi, commie... et al.; Its not so much of a problem as a 3rd party descriptor... although I may be wrong.


You're the moderator, not me.
 
I know... but being a bomb shelter link I didn't think it instantly permissable to just bulk paste chunks of semi private conversations without admin permission. At least 40% of us should be able to read it. I'm cool with editing a quick and dirty listing for the public if anyone cares.
 
I've always loved how in Washington, an increase in spending can be called a cut if it's not a big enough increase.
 
Inkara1 said:
I've always loved how in Washington, an increase in spending can be called a cut if it's not a big enough increase.

I believe the standard year to year automatic expenditure upgrade is 5%, unless the inflation rate is above that then it must match or exceed such rate.

So, as you were saying, a 4.9% rate of growth is considered a cut. I wish my bank allowed that.


takes money education and the poor, elderly, infirm, and disabled and gives it to the rich
Since we're not a socialist democracy nor a communist nation, I'd like to see the part where The United States Constitution, which specifies the limits of federal government, expressly allows the federal government to forcibly take wealth from its citizens & redistribute that wealth to other citizens. There also seems to be a section missing about the federal government giving anything to anyone. That is precisley what Karl Marx wrote about, not James Madison, et al.

There is however, a part expressly written for the federal government to create & fund an army.
 
Gonz said:
I'd like to see the part where The United States Constitution, which specifies the limits of federal government, expressly allows the federal government to forcibly take wealth from its citizens & redistribute that wealth to other citizens.
I didn't make any claim that it said that. I merely comment on who was getting less and who was getting more and that it was pretty standard. If you're proud of him for taking money from education and the poor, elderly, infirm, and disabled and giving it to the rich or using it to help kill people then that's on you.

There is however, a part expressly written for the federal government to create & fund an army.
Is there a part that specifies using that army to invade and occupy foreign countries that are no threat to us.? Does it say anything about spending 500-600 billion on that army while running the budget through the roof?

Give us a laugh and justify these LIES.....

promises made by the President and Congressional Republicans:
None of the Social Security trust funds and Medicare trust funds will be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief.

A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for America's Priorities
Office of Management and Budget
February 28, 2001, Page 11


To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted into any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone.

President George W. Bush
Address to Joint Session of Congress
February 27, 2001


We are going to wall off Social Security trust funds and Medicare trust funds . . . And consequently, we pay down the public debt when we do that. So we are going to continue to do that. That's in the parameters of our budget and we are not going to dip into that at all.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert
Quoted in BNA's Daily Tax Report
March 2, 2001


We must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either Social Security or Medicare and if that means forgoing or, as it were, paying for tax cuts, then we'll do that.

House Majority Leader Richard Armey
BNA's Daily Tax Report
July 11, 2001


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The language that will be in law when the President signs [the Continuing Resolution] is the 104th Congress is to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Very real. Very meaningful."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Representative Tom DeLay
November 20, 1995
Congressional Record H13371
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[CBO] is not a partisan office. It is not even a bipartisan office. It is a nonpartisan office. We on our side have had tremendous disagreements with those numbers, but why would we want those numbers to be used instead of the Office of Management and Budget? The Office of Management and Budget's are partisan numbers done by the President's political appointee. . . .We just want it to be real."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Representative Chris Shays
November 18, 1995
Congressional Record H15077
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Let us be very clear, the language tonight says nothing about taxes. It says nothing about defense. It says nothing about education or environment. All it says, all it says is the President of the United States, in return for us giving him billions of dollars to spend, should commit to a 7-year balanced budget, scored honestly, by the Congressional Budget Office."[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
November 15, 1995
Congressional Record H12502
[/font]​


 
Back
Top