Bush White House projects record deficit for 2009

[nhboy (Premo)]

" WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the measure of the nation's total economy."

" President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy."

White House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com

Gotta love the guy, he sure knows how to spend our shekels!

[PulseStart]

columns on this liberal scare...
Thomas Sowell Rebutts the National Debt Alarmists « Stop overTaxing Our People

Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com :: Trade Deficits: Good or Bad?

[ImnoMensa]

Bush cannot spend a penny without Congress.

Of course he gets all the blame and hasnt done much to stop these deficits.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PulseStart

columns on this liberal scare...
Thomas Sowell Rebutts the National Debt Alarmists « Stop overTaxing Our People

Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com :: Trade Deficits: Good or Bad?

Waal, you run right on over and have Tom and Walt fill up your tank and buy you a load of groceries in 2009!

[PulseStart]

I read their opinions and learn...so should you...BTW both Thomas Sowell And Walter Williams have PHD's in economics unlike the writer's of the CNN article you posted...I wonder what degree's Brianna Keiler and Scott Anderson hold other than writing scare journalism.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PulseStart

I read their opinions and learn...so should you...BTW both Thomas Sowell And Walter Williams have PHD's in economics unlike the writer's of the CNN article you posted...I wonder what degree's Brianna Keiler and Scott Anderson hold other than writing scare journalism.

Woo Woo! You don't need a Doctorate to report what the Bush Administration is saying.

[PulseStart]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Woo Woo! You don't need a Doctorate to report what the Bush Administration is saying.

No you don't, but people don't know what the deficit's and surplus's mean and you can't get it from CNN.

Originally Posted by PulseStart

columns on this liberal scare...
Thomas Sowell Rebutts the National Debt Alarmists « Stop overTaxing Our People

Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com :: Trade Deficits: Good or Bad?

A taxing experience

Judaism: The Jewish site | When liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.
As we are endlessly reminded, the federal government’s debt has reached record levels during the Bush administration. That enables the liberal media to use their favorite word — “crisis” — and adds urgency to doing their favorite thing, raising taxes.
Since we have a larger population than ever and a larger national income than ever, it should hardly be surprising that we also have a larger national debt than ever. But what does it mean?
Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do — and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.
How does our national debt today compare to our national income? It is lower than it was a decade ago, during the
Clinton administration, when liberals did not seem nearly as panicked as they seem today.
As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940 — back in those “earlier and simpler times.”
If someone were to produce a political dictionary, “crisis” would be defined as a desire to pass a law and “national debt” would be defined as a desire to raise taxes. And the two in combination would mean a desire to discredit the existing administration.
If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by “entitlement” programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. “Taxes” is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.
Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word — “taxes” — is used to refer to both.
What “tax cuts” cut is the tax rate. But tax revenues can rise, fall, or stay the same when tax rates are cut. Everything depends on what happens to income.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Bush cannot spend a penny without Congress.

Of course he gets all the blame and hasnt done much to stop these deficits.

Exactly. Bush could've stopped the deficit spending with a stroke of his pen. There were few, if any, veto proof majorities when Congress passed the appropriations bills.

[Rosehaven]

hey, if you cashed the stimulus check the President of the United States sent, then some of the finger pointing has to go toward you. That said, I still fail to see how someone with a straight face can say cutting taxes and spending money for a war makes any kind of economic sense and the only "sacrifice" the American people need to make is to take their shoes off at the airport during a security check. All of us should have been told to put some skin in this war and we weren't asked to do so. George Bush is a real hero.