The Bush administration is pushing, and the lapdog MSM repeating, that things are going gangbusters because the budget deficit is less than it previously was. Of course, before Bush came into office there wasn’t any deficit.
Clinton – 1999 – $122.7 billion surplus
Clinton – 2000 – $230 billion surplus
Bush – Feb ‘06 – $423 billion deficit
Bush – Jul ‘06 – $296 billion deficit
Up is down.
Hold it. For the last 2-3 years, people such as yourself have been going on and on about “runaway deficits”, “ballooning deficits”, “record deficits”, “deficits headed towards the trillions”, etc.
Now when it is shown that such fearmongering was misplaced (as many were telling you), you shout CLINTON!! CLINTON!!
So running up record deficits is okay when theres a slight downtick in the deficit even though his administration started out with a surplus?
Okay….
Budget surplus?
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
There are liars and damned liars. Which one are you OW?
Obviously William doesn’t even know what this argument is about, so I’m just going to ignore his post. That being said, I think it’s pretty unfair to compare Clinton’s economic record with Bush’s– mostly because Clinton had the benefit of presiding over an economy that reflected the tremendous change and growth in the technology sector since I’ve been alive, and Bush has had to deal with the after-effects of an over inflated stock market, as well as the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks and increased spending related to that (not even including the war in Iraq).
However, it’s extremely disconcerting to have a president and a (republican) house and senate that seem to be either totally oblivious to or simply don’t care about the ever increasing poverty levels and wealth distribution problems in this country. I would love to see any evidence that shows that the economy has done anything but hurt those who have the least, for the gain of those who have the most.
Trustme Iknow,
I don’t.
I gain a small level of personal satisfaction from Jay’s “fall from grace.” He used to be the poster boy for fiscal conservatism and responsibility.
Deficits, shmeficits. Right?
Bush’s deficits, just like Reagan’s, will be the “gift that keeps on giving,” long after he’s out of office.
There’s a “Re-elect Bill Clinton” bumper sticker circulating. While the constitution makes that impossible–we sure could benefit from a strong dose of Clintonomics.
But that’s because I hate Bush, right Dugger?
JK
There sure are a lot of ditto heads around here. Why do they bother?
It’sstill a DEFICIT.
For the last 2-3 years, people such as yourself have been going on and on about runaway deficits , ballooning deficits , record deficits ,
And with good reason.
AWOL George has presided over four of the highest budget deficits on record.
I spoke too soon: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/07/10/the-jobs-issue/#comment-43623
“But that s because I hate Bush, right Dugger?”
I don’t know. Do you? Many progressives hate Bush as deeply as a Klansman has ever hated a black person.
I do know the deficit trend is looking very good and Bush may actually pick up some momentum if it continues.
Dugger
AWOL George has presided over four of the highest budget deficits on record.
No, he has not.
Once again, Flanagan either has his facts wrong or he is lying. Take your pick.
I laugh at Oliver talking about a “slight downtick.” With a war and tax rate cuts, the deficit decreased in the last year $127b and it’s a “slight downtick.” Right. And the Goodyear blimp is a “small balloon.”
One thing that makes me laugh about people bragging about Clinton and those surpluses is that they can never explain how they came about. Ever. They brag about it, but can never explain it.
Two things,
does that include war costs?
The projections are inflated to begin with like the Bush Admin does every year. We predict a defecit of $500 billion, it’s only $300 billion we rule! We have a defecit of $300 billion at least. Congrats.
Hahahahaaa….
So now they’re inflating the estimates?!? That’s just too funny!
KARL ROVE STRIKES AGAIN!!
Trustme…
I would love to see any evidence that shows that the economy has done anything but hurt those who have the least, for the gain of those who have the most.
Can you provide and example of the type of evidence you want, from a period when this was not so?
JK…
…we sure could benefit from a strong dose of Clintonomics.
Neat term! What does it mean?
Linky
The release of the White House midsession budget review is an annual event normally marked by a few wonkish observations and the routine updating of various spreadsheets, not by a full-dress presidential dog-and-pony show. But President Bush plans to preside today, with members of Congress and invited guests in attendance. By all indications, including his own in his weekly radio address last Saturday, he plans to turn this into a celebration just in time for the fall campaign.
This is proof, if anyone still needs it, that this administration is desperate for something to boast about. On Mr. Bush s watch, triple-digit budget surpluses have turned into annual triple-digit budget deficits. There s no information in the midsession report to alter that utterly dispiriting fact. Yes, the report is expected to project that this year s deficit will be somewhat less gargantuan than last year s probably somewhere between $280 billion and $300 billion, versus a $318 billion shortfall in 2005. That s not much to crow about.
But Mr. Bush is likely to gloat, anyway. Earlier this year, the administration conveniently projected a highly inflated deficit of $423 billion. With that as a starting point, the actual results can be spun to look as if they re worth cheering.
The razzle-dazzle won t end there. As he did in his remarks on Saturday, Mr. Bush is sure to use today s event to credit tax cuts for a projected surge in tax revenue. The Treasury is expected to take in about $250 billion more in 2006 than in 2005, for a total take of $2.4 trillion. Devoid of context, the number looks impressive.
In fact, it is $100 billion less than the $2.5 trillion revenue estimate the administration touted when it set out in 2001 to sell its policy of never-ending tax cuts. Even with this year s bigger haul, real revenue growth during the Bush years will be abysmal, averaging about 0.3 percent per capita, versus an average of nearly 10 percent in all previous post-World War II business cycles. That might be excusable if the recent revenue improvements could reasonably be expected to continue. They cannot. Much of the increase in tax receipts is from corporate profits, high-income investors and super high-earning executives, sources that are just as unpredictable as the financial markets to which they re inevitably linked.
So, the revenue surge is neither a sign that the tax cuts are working nor of sustainable economic growth. A growing number of economists, most prominently from the Congressional Budget Office, point out that upsurges in revenue are also the result of growing income inequality in the United States, an observation that is consistent with mounting evidence of a rapidly widening gap between the rich and everyone else. As corporations and high- income Americans claim ever more of the economic pie, revenues rise, even if there s no increase in overall economic growth.
If Mr. Bush looked behind his headline numbers, he, too, could see that the rich are getting richer while the rest are, at best, only holding ground. It would make sense to use some of the windfall revenue to enact policies and programs that tilt against growing inequality. Unfortunately, he s flogging more tax cuts that will deepen the divide.
Actually, this whole item is nothing but an attempt to try and weaken one of the Admin’s true and important strong points: a surprisingly robust economy.
If you want to hear some first class hemming and hawing, ask a Democrat what major policy changes they would make regarding the current economy. And then lets see them run on it.
Dugger
This whole strong economy bullshit is really getting on my nerves. The economy has failed to deliver any increases to lower and middle class wages, the average worker’s real wages are continuously lower than they have historically been, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting wider…
What we’re setting ourselves up for is a crash of great depression proportions.
Dugger, even if/when a democrat proposes changes, you just stick your fingers in your ears and start screaming neocon talking points. Or you accuse them of “hating bush like the klan hates blacks”, which is about the dumbest comparison that has ever come out of your mouths. People like me hate Bush because he has spent 6 years lying to us, advancing the interests of people who hurt america, of leaving us to suffer while he clears brush or plays guitar. That has about as much to do with hating or denigrating someone simply because of the color of their skin as…well, fuck, I can’t even come up with a good analogy. The two are completely unrelated. Its the most assinine thing you’ve said on here, and thats pretty damn impressive.
Also, it doesn’t hurt to note that three years in a row this administration has basically released the worse case scenario for the budget numbers, than bragged when its closer to the middle case. Thats hardly meaningful.
BTW, lets not forget that even Bush’s own administration officials are saying that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. They never will.
Scratch… if you look at the chart (fig. 3) in the following link, you will see a steady decline in poverty levels from 1994 to 2000, and a steady increase in poverty levels from 2000 to 2004 (which I believe is the most recent year statistics (on poverty) are available from the census bureau.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04fig03.pdf
OR…
It’s an attempt by the Administration to highlight something that the MSM REFUSES to do so. Does the President not have 1st Amendment rights?
As Dennis Miller said, “Deficit! Who cares? I’m not paying it!. I asked my son, “Do you mind if I pass the deficit on to you?” He said, “No. I’ll pass it on to my kids.”
The deficit is about as real as global warming, evolution, and “embryonic stem cell research (and only embryonic stem cell research, dammit) will cure Parkinson’s”.
Frank, for once we couldn’t be more firmly in agreement.
The deficit is 100% as real as evolution and global warming. I feel remarkably comfortable with that comparison.
quickie, Catharsis over? Feel better? Bush’s strong ecominc numbers are still there.
I will grant you Bush is juts as much of a selling poltician as any other and his Admin like all others, will try to put a good face on things. Human nature. And, as always I know of no lies, none, nada, Bush has ever told and have yet to see a single one documented.
Dugger
Jamey…
In fact, it is $100 billion less than the $2.5 trillion revenue estimate the administration touted when it set out in 2001 to sell its policy of never-ending tax cuts.
So he missed it by 4%, right? Are you pointing out that he missed it by 4%, or is my math wrong? And were there years or time frames attached to those projections?
I read in my right-wing talking points fax from Mr. Rove this morning that two years ago Bush promised to halve the deficit by 2009…and with these new numbers we’re nearly there already.
I think the problem with the left wing talking points, in contrast, is that they address the argument that “a $300T deficit is good,” when in fact nobody has said this. What has been said is that the tax cuts have made the deficit lower than projected, because tax revenues have increased (though, as you showed, the revenue increase may have been off estimates by as much as 4%.)
Thanks Trustme.
I think it’s interesting that the chart also shows a steady decline in poverty during the Reagan years. I wish I was an economist so I could understand why this was so, given the “decade of greed” and all.
Bush s strong ecominc numbers are still there.
The soft bigotry of low expectations marches on.
And, as always I know of no lies, none, nada, Bush has ever told and have yet to see a single one documented.
Except for the war, the economy, WMD, White House leaks, you’re 100% correct.
Well, then that’s three things I don’t have to worry about.
Deficit: The White House Office of Management and Budget had originally forecast a deficit of $423 billion for fiscal 2006 — instead, increased tax revenues have pushed the estimate down to about $296 billion.
1. Accusations that the administration is employing the famous UPOD business principle — “under-promise, over-deliver” — are not entirely unjustified, considering that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had originally forecast a deficit of just $350 billion. Still, both were wrong by a very large margin (15.4 percent for the CBO and 30 percent for the White House), and the positive reversal of fortune clearly had nothing to do with fiscal discipline in the Congress.
2. The real culprit here for the errors is the practice of static scoring of tax revenues, which is still employed by the government despite experience. Both the White House and the CBO score the loss of tax revenue from tax-cuts as though they did not affect the behavior of business owners, shareholders and other investors — a sure recipe for missing the mark.
Clinton: Surplus.
Bush: Deficit.
Clinton = Trailer trash “Hal Holbrook imitator”
Bush = Poor little rich kid “deer in the headlights”. Having a ball being misunderestimated.
I have a question, if the defecit is only $296 billion why has the government had to borrow $481 billion so far this year? At least that is the amount the national debt has increased.
Cash flow, my friend, cash flow.
The $500B was to cover expenditures until April 15 when all the money started flowing in.
Exactly how do they arrive at defecit numbers? I mean they are touting a defecit of $296 billion, yet the US government has had to borrow almost $500 billion this year. And the Repub congress wants to raise the debt ceiling another $653 billion after raising it almost $800 billion earlier in March of this year. I get the feeling these defecit numbers don’t mean anything.
SaveFarris, you are incorrect. The amount of government debt issued outstrips the amount of the deficit because there is a difference in the scope of borrowing covered.
The General Fund budget, which is the budget cited in deficit numbers, will likely be about $300 billion. The debt issued includes surpluses from military retirement, Federal pensions and small trust funds. This has held about $150-$200 billion more than the declared deficit for the past five years. Thus, we can expect to see about $500 billion added to our national debt this year, which will probably move us past Germany and France in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio. We’re still in safe range but starting to head into dangerous territory.