Still standing by Bush?

what about this enormous fucking debt we're racking up with this guy? Some figure of a 50% increase in the rate of debt accumulation was mentioned today, since ol' dubya took office.

he wants to cut the debt in half by 2009, while keeping troops over there 'til 2008, @ an avg. cost today of $1Billion per week, and still manage to extend tax breaks to businesses....

wow, just wow...he may be onto something..

 

Very true, the debt is outrageous. I'm sure the same would have happened with anyone else in office under the same circumstances. But it cannot be denied the economy is still in good shape and that there is at least a plan to eliminate the debt.

 

since you seem knowledgebable of the BUsh future policy, could you please show me what the plan is to eliminate the debt? or at least a link to a site where it does show the plan, i am actually interested, thank you

 

idiot

 

I'll point out he removed $20+ million to the Iraq war rather than keep it on buidling/repairing levees, thanks.

 

THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET: THE DEFICIT; In Calculating the Shortfall, Likely Costs Are Left Out
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
New York Times
February 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - On paper, President Bush's budget seems to meet his promise of cutting the federal deficit in half by the time he leaves office.
But in practice, the budget is much less realistic than it appears because it omits nearly a half-trillion dollars in costs that are likely to be incurred over the next five years.
The omissions include any costs for the war in Iraq after 2007, any additional reconstruction costs for New Orleans after 2006 and any plan for preventing a huge expansion in the alternative minimum tax after the end of this year.
And because Mr. Bush's blueprint is limited to the next five years, it offers little guidance on how he would restrain the soaring costs of Medicare and Social Security as the nation's 70 million-plus baby boomers begin to retire in 2008.
If all of the White House proposals and projections are taken at face value, the budget deficit will climb to $423 billion this fiscal year and then shrink to $208 billion by 2009.
That would fulfill Mr. Bush's promise to halve the deficit, but only if he manages to avoid the gremlins that have bedeviled his previous plans.
The most obvious omission involves the costs of the war in Iraq, which have averaged nearly $100 billion a year since 2003. White House officials said Monday that they planned to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion this fiscal year, on top of the $50 billion it has already approved, and $50 billion for 2007.
Those costs appear to have been incorporated into the deficit forecasts through 2007, but the budget assumes that those costs will cease in the years that follow.
Far more significant, however, is Mr. Bush's refusal to deal with an explosion in the alternative minimum tax.
Created in 1969 to stop the nation's richest citizens from taking too much advantage of tax breaks, the alternative minimum tax is set to engulf tens of millions of additional families over the next few years.
Mr. Bush and Congressional leaders from both parties have promised to prevent that from happening, but Mr. Bush's budget still assumes that the government will reap hundreds of billions of extra dollars from the tax over the next five years.
The new White House proposal includes about $34 billion to keep the tax from expanding, but that will cover only 2006.
The budget commitment needed to keep the alternative minimum tax at current levels will keep rising and soon become as expensive as the war in Iraq. In 2009, the year in which Mr. Bush promises to reduce the deficit to $208 billion, the cost of preventing a de facto tax increase just for that year would push the deficit to nearly $300 billion.
One year ago, Mr. Bush promised to address the problem by proposing a top-to-bottom overhaul of the income tax system that would eliminate the alternative minimum tax and pay for that by ending scores of other tax breaks.
But Mr. Bush has all but abandoned any efforts at tax overhaul for this year and did not mention the issue in his State of the Union address last week. Where Mr. Bush has not wavered is his insistence on preserving and expanding the tax cuts from his first term.
The White House budget outlines plans to shave about $65 billion from programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps education and housing assistance for low-income families, the elderly and the disabled.
But Mr. Bush would extend virtually all of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, add new tax breaks to subsidize the purchase of health care, and extend dozens of other expiring tax cuts for businesses and investors.
Extending Mr. Bush's basic tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, most of which expire around 2010, would cost about $178 billion over the next five years and $1.35 trillion over the next decade.
Adding on all the other proposals in the budget, including renewing existing tax breaks and expanding tax breaks for programs like health savings accounts, the five-year tally of costs climbs to nearly $300 billion and the 10-year total passes $1.5 trillion.
In an effort to shift the debate, Mr. Bush's new budget calls for Congress to take a new approach in assessing the cost of making his tax cuts permanent.
Under Mr. Bush's plan, Congress would not treat an extension of the tax cuts as having any cost. That is the way the White House tallies up its budget, but it would be a huge change for Congress, which explicitly played down the cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by having them expire.
Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group, said that even a Republican-led Congress was unlikely to agree to the change.
''What the administration wants is the most flagrant gimmick in the history of the U. S. budget,'' Mr. Greenstein said. ''It's so flagrant that I don't think that even Congress will give it to them.''
Even staunch champions of fiscal discipline acknowledge that budget deficits over the next few years are not in themselves disastrous.
As a share of the nation's gross domestic product, a measure that most economists consider a better gauge of financial health than just a dollar figure, the deficit this year would hit 3.2 percent and decline to 1.2 percent after five years.
This year's anticipated deficit, worsened by the war and hurricane relief, is much smaller as a share of gross domestic product than those in the 1980's and early 90's.
But the budget deficits this year and in the immediate future are alarming to many economists for two other reasons.
For one thing, the budget faces much larger problems as tens of millions of baby boomers begin to retire. The oldest will qualify for Social Security and Medicare benefits in 2008, with the numbers expected to soar in the decade that follows.
Economists also say the budget deficits pose a more immediate concern. They are extremely high for a country that has enjoyed strong economic growth for more than four years and has seen its unemployment rate drop below 5 percent.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the primary causes of the budget deficit have changed dramatically. For the first several years of Mr. Bush's presidency, much of it stemmed from a series of economic shocks -- the collapse of the stock market bubble, the recession of 2001, anxiety caused by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and corporate accounting scandals.
By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that in the 2005 fiscal year, economic problems caused only about 8 percent of the deficit. The rest resulted from policy choices by Congress and the Bush administration.
That leaves the government's financial health much more dependent on the health of the economy.

 

U.S. Trade Deficit Sets Record, With China and Oil the Causes
By VIKAS BAJAJ
New York Times
February 11, 2006

The United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion in 2005, the government reported yesterday, adding more fuel to the increasingly partisan debate between advocates of further globalization and those who contend that free trade is causing the loss of too many American manufacturing jobs.
Hitting its fourth consecutive annual record, the gap between exports and imports reached almost twice the level of 2001. It was driven by strong consumer demand for foreign goods and soaring energy prices that added tens of billions of dollars to the nation's bill for imported oil. The nation last had a trade surplus, of $12.4 billion, in 1975.
The continued growth in the trade deficit, particularly with China, is likely to renew a fight in Congress as early as this spring over President Bush's trade policies. Lawmakers have seized on the growing imbalance with China to call on the White House to take a harder line with Beijing over its currency practices.
But as long as the American economy is growing faster than most of its trading partners and energy prices stay at elevated levels, economists expect little improvement, and perhaps even a slight widening, in the trade imbalance this year.
''You would need a dramatic slowdown in domestic U.S. demand to bring down the U.S. trade deficit, and we think that is unlikely,'' said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital in New York.
That means the nation will go deeper into debt with the rest of the world as Americans continue to rely on the strong flow of foreign money, particularly from central banks in Asia, to finance the trade gap. China, Japan and other foreign governments are some of the biggest holders of government securities, lending money to cover the substantial federal budget deficit and helping to keep interest rates and home mortgage costs here relatively low.
As a result, American consumers are able to spend more and save less.
Many economists say this situation is unsustainable over the long run, arguing that the United States could eventually face a harsh correction that would depress spending, increase the cost of borrowing and sharply lower the value of the dollar.
''There are certainly going to be inflows, the question is at what price?'' said James O'Sullivan, an economist at UBS, an investment house. ''As time goes on, it will become a little more difficult to attract foreign funds. That's another way of saying the dollar will fall.''
But other economists argue that the huge trade gap mostly reflects stronger American growth and that money is flowing into the country at relatively low rates because of the attractiveness of the United States as a place to invest. They see little reason to fear a dollar crisis.
''As long as foreigners are willing to put their capital in the United States, we can sustain a trade deficit of 6 percent or more'' of overall economic activity, said Phillip L. Swagel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington who served as a staff economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
''It would be better that we saved more on our own,'' Mr. Swagel added, ''but given that we aren't, I would rather have investment go on by foreign capital.''
For its part, the Bush administration urged caution on the deficit.
Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, touring an I.B.M. operation in North Carolina, told The Associated Press, ''We can't overreact and make tactical choices that will hurt our economy.''
As a share of the gross domestic product, the trade gap increased to 5.8 percent, from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003.
While most economists dismiss the importance of bilateral trade imbalances, it is the deficit with China that has set off the most political fireworks. That nation had the largest gap with the United States of any country, at $201.6 billion for the year, up 24.5 percent from 2004. In December, the deficit with China narrowed nearly 12 percent, to $16.3 billion.
Following increased pressure from the White House, the Chinese government allowed the yuan to rise by about 2 percent in July and allowed its currency to float in a narrow band. Since then the yuan, also known as the renminbi, has risen by an additional 0.7 percent. One dollar buys about 8.0505 yuan.
A stronger Chinese currency would make imports to the United States more expensive and American exports to that country cheaper. Most analysts agree the yuan would rise significantly if it were set free, but many experts also worry that many financial institutions in China are not strong enough to survive the shocks that might accompany a fully convertible currency.
In the Senate, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, have proposed imposing a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports if the country does not allow its currency to appreciate further against the dollar. Late last year, the senators agreed to hold off on the measure after the Senate voted against stopping a floor vote on it.
Mr. Schumer said ''there is a very strong likelihood that we will move our bill in March should the Chinese not show further movements.''
''If you believe in free trade, you play by the rules,'' he said when asked if a protectionist tariff would hurt the American economy. ''The long-term damage of the Chinese pegging their currency far exceeds any immediate benefits and almost every economist would agree with that. They might not agree with our methodology.''
Experts note that a large portion of the deficit with China reflects its growing role as a hub for the assembly of goods as Asian manufacturers have shifted production there to save money. The overall deficit with Asia has changed little in recent years.
Bush administration officials have said they, too, would like to see the yuan appreciate further, but have contended that sanctions like a tariff would be counterproductive and would hurt consumers. This month, the Treasury Department urged the International Monetary Fund to improve its policing of currency manipulations by governments, without directly referring to China.
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow is expected to bring up the issue of exchange rates at a meeting of the Group of 8 finance ministers in Moscow this weekend.
But even some longstanding advocates of free trade are growing increasingly frustrated with China's intransigence on the currency front, warning that it may be inviting protectionist legislation by repeatedly deflecting Washington's requests.
''The administration,'' said C. Fred Bergsten of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, ''has to let the Chinese know that it may not be able to stop it even though it doesn't want it.''
While China draws most of the attention, perhaps the most important factor behind the swelling deficit last year was the rising cost of importing oil and other energy supplies. Trade in petroleum products accounted for 29 percent of the total deficit, up from 25 percent in 2004. Imports of petroleum goods climbed 39 percent, to $251.6 billion, after rising by 39 percent in 2004.
Over all, the deficit jumped nearly 18 percent in 2005 compared with the previous year. Excluding oil and other petroleum products, the trade gap grew by 10 percent.
After China, the United States' second-biggest deficit was with Japan, at $82.7 billion, up 9.4 percent, followed by Canada, a big supplier of oil and natural gas, at $76.5 billion, up 15.1 percent.
The deficit with members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries increased by 29 percent, to $92.7 billion. For December, the trade deficit grew by 1.5 percent over the previous month, to $65.7 billion, as imports of computers, cars and airplanes rose and exports of planes, which had risen sharply in November, dropped. It was the third-largest monthly trade gap on record.
And with oil prices rising again, said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst for the MG Financial Group in New York, ''we can expect to see worse numbers to come.''

 

there.. a couple of doses of reality for ya, jw

 

here's another : Bush Plan Would Raise Deficit by $1.2 Trillion, Budget Office Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
New York Times
March 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 3 - President Bush's budget would increase the federal deficit by $35 billion this year and by more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Friday.
The nonpartisan budget office said that Mr. Bush's tax-cutting proposals would cost about $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years and that his proposals to partly privatize Social Security would cost about $312 billion during that period.
The office also said Mr. Bush's proposals to save money on Medicare, Medicaid and most nonmilitary programs would offset about one-third of the cost of his other proposals.
The report comes as Republican leaders in Congress prepare to settle on their own budget for next year, which could differ substantially from Mr. Bush's. They are already running into political and economic obstacles as they try to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts, pay for the war in Iraq and squeeze spending on antipoverty programs, education and most other areas of nonmilitary spending.
Senate Republicans, nervous about their prospects in this fall's midterm elections, are balking at Mr. Bush's proposal to trim $36 billion over five years from Medicare, the government health program for the elderly.
House and Senate leaders remain bogged down over a limited extension of Mr. Bush's tax cut for stock dividends, and Senate Republicans have repeatedly failed in efforts to permanently repeal the estate tax.
At first blush, the Congressional Budget Office's report appears optimistic because it envisions that the budget deficit will slowly decline from $371 billion this year as economic growth generates more revenue and as Mr. Bush's budget cuts take effect.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the budget deficit would decline to about 1 percent in 2011 from 2.8 percent this year. Though the government would still be borrowing money each year, the annual deficit would be low by historical standards.
But the budget office noted that it had not included money for military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan after this year. The Bush administration has asked for a total of $92 billion in supplemental spending this year for those efforts.
Mr. Bush's budget also omits any cost for preventing a huge expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax that is expected to engulf tens of millions of people over the next several years.
Mr. Bush's budget assumes that the government will reap well over $1 trillion from the alternative minimum tax over the next decade, but Republicans and Democrats alike have vowed to prevent that from happening.
The optimistic outlook also assumes that Congress freezes or cuts the vast majority of discretionary government programs outside of military and domestic security ones.
Mr. Bush's 2007 budget would cut $2.1 billion next year from education, which had been one of the president's areas for increased spending. It would also cut money for community development block grants, low-income housing, child-support enforcement against deadbeat fathers and scores of other programs with support in Congress.

 

He's wrong about the budget deficit, but he's right that the economy is in good shape.

 

relatively speaking yes; but we're not gaining ANY ground on paying our debts, we're barely making the 'interest payments', so the economy being in fairly decent shape doesn't really mean shit.

We're not producing as much as we should, our businesses outsource cheap foreign labor, and Bush extends tax cuts to these businesses??

sounds real fair to the working middle class

 

That conclusion doesn't follow at all from your other statements. Inflation, interest rates, and unemployment are low, and GDP growth is good. The debt is a measure of how much the government owes, not how healthy the economy is.

And outsourcing is also good. American companies should do what they are most efficient at.

 

how does that benefit the economy? that doesn't exactly fit into "Gross National Product"

unfavorable balance of trade isn't a "conspiracy theory", it's a genuine problem.

if gov't was a conventional business, it would be out of business.

Economy's in great shape, but we have record debt, so it's all good; try convincing a kid that it evens out, because a reasonable adult won't buy that.

is the sky falling? no...but terrorists aren't going to invade our country either. Troops need to come back and get real jobs.

 

How does what fit into GNP?

And no, a trade deficit is not necessarily a problem. Japan and Germany had consistent trade surpluses, but their economies stagnated for years - in the case of Japan, for over a decade. It is a myth that a trade deficit is bad.

Can you cut down on the populist rhetoric and try to get to the real issues?

 

Another Bush asslicker.

 

This has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with economic illiteracy. Try to keep up.

 

yeah? how are you going to sugar-coat a 50% increase on the total debt, since he entered office? that's no myth.
have you even watched the "State of The Union Address" ??
I did. Not only did he sound like a bumbling fool who doesn't know what he's doing, he's obviously made some bad decisions. For someone who's supposed to be "conservative", he handles priorities and fiscal responsibilty like an adolescent.

so can you cut down on the devil's advocate bs?

there's nothing even remotely acceptable about foreign banks owning a good portion of our country, but I'm sure you'll just cop-out and pass that off as a conspiracy theory
too.


and I guess Bush failing to figure the Katrina Relief effort into the budget is populist rhetoric too

 

tell that to the guy you seem to defend; seems like Bushco could use some "economic re-education"

 

I don't have to sugar coat the increase in debt. We had an economic slowdown, 9/11, and Katrina. These things tend to increase the debt.

Please tell me how foreign banks own a "good portion" of this country.

 

True, and who was one of the main funders of Hitler through the brown brothers and harriman bank? Bush's Grandfather Prescott Bush, Like Father Like Son...do some research and you will realize the entire buisness of the Bush Family is funding terrorists, getting them into power, and then making millions by invading and taking them out.