Bush: Budget surplus by 2012 -- with discipline

What about the "off budget" spending, like the Iraq War? Throw that trillion dollar disaster in and see if the budget balances in 2012. Also, cutting taxes increases tax revenue? That's like saying cutting my salary increases my paycheck. Gimme a break. Does anyone believe a word this president says anymore?

I love how the receipts have skyrocketed in recent years, which clearly shows TAX CUTS are good, TAX INCREASES are bad.

I'm also glad that Bush has been reigning in spending in recent years, and especially now that the Demoncrats want to socialize everything in sight.

I just wish Bush was a little stronger of a deficit hawk the first few years of his administration.

"Bush: Budget Surplus By 2012"?

The Decider Guy didn't seen to worry about the budget between 2000-2006 when he and his "Conservative" Republican pals in Congress nearly doubled our national debt.

The Republicks don't want to raise your taxes, they want to put everything your credit card so that they can continue to get elected and our grandkids can worry about paying back China.

"Only" 466 days left:
http://www.nationalnightmare.com/

Reigning in spending in recent years??

Try the last 6 months.

Bush NEVER vetoed ANY spending bill before the Democrats took over.

Oh my what a surprise the democrats see some hard numbers and dismiss them out of hand because cutting taxes HAS to be bad i mean we cant have those folks keeping that money that they earn!! They might do something crazy like...spend it or invest it or worse yet SAVE IT FOR RETIREMENT and then we wouldnt have them depending on us for social security and medicaid!!!

The GOP just loves putting things on the national credit card. Somebody has to pay that money back, as long as it is our children and our grandchildren paying it back and not us they are happy.

Is this guy a classic hypocrite or what? NOW he wants to tighten the budget belt and tells the now Democratic-controlled Congress to take care of it? Why didn't he tell the Republican-controlled Congress to do the same? Can't wait till this disaster of a president is gone.

Tax Increases increase revenues?

John D.

Did you ever look at anything that David Stockman wrote after leaving office? You remember him. He's the one who came up with the concept of "trickle down economics".

AFTER he left office, Mr. Stockman admitted that all of this was a ruse to simply give the richest people in the country a large tax cut.

As with Reagan, Bush's ideas only work when there is a substantial decrease in spending. Again, something that Stockman admitted.

You folks can live in your FANTASY world that just cutting taxes will make everything fine. Unfortunately, REAL economics doesn't work that way.

John D-

Tax revenues increased after Clinton's tax increase as well. So your conclusion is without merit.

"BUSH GETS NEW REPORT CARD AND GETS C MINUS AGAIN, BUT FEELS THE FUTURE WILL CORRECT ITSELF."

A loaf of bread is 3.00 on the East Coast. Milk is 5.00 across the country. I know he got this from The Office of Faith Based Communities.

He got this from taking back the earmarks of should be Former Senator Ted Stevens.

He got this from Paul Wolfowitz as he found the 9 billion dollars lost while being gaurded by BLACKWATER.

He got this from America not paying HALLIBURTON, BLACKWATER, BECTEL, THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THEIR FAILED CONTRACTS IN IRAQ.

NO HE GOT THIS FROM GEORGE TENET IN HIS NEXT BOOK, 'now you know the rest of the story."

Actually Mitch McConnell fillibustered the wrong bill and THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT ORDER IS GOING TO BE HEARD ON THE SENATE FLOOR AFTERALL.

Paul, are you honestly disputing that tax revenue has increased in the past few years? It's not even a gray area. Gross receipts from April of '07 were the highest on record. Your analogy to cutting your salary is terrible. Tax revenue is more closely tied to the health of the economy than to income tax rates. A better analogy for you would be that your percentage take of the company profits is reduced, but since the company is doing better you actually make more.

please remember, these budget numbers do NOT include the cost of the Iraqi war...can we see the graph where the cost of fighting this war is accounted for in the budget...it's INSANE to ignore the cost of the war when running the country's budget numbers...

The rest of the story is the 9 trillion dollar national debt, and the interest on it. Shortly, it will make it impossible to balance the budget.

It'll be 10 trillion by Inauguration Day, 2009.

I can tell them how to get an almost immediate surplus, stop spending BILLIONS in Iraq, pretty simple actually, either stop the spending there or get the USA a lot of VERY cheap oil for our efforts...

There's gotta be a payoff for us somewhere in that mess...

TexasFred’s

Of course there will be a surplus - the Democrats will control the White House and Congress for 4 years at that point.

I want to see a chart that includes the budget deficits for 2001 and 2002. Bush was president then, wasn't he? So how much more was added to the national Debt in those 2 years.

We should have been talking about surpluses the entire time Bush was in office. The headline is like a sports page headline that says, "Titans lose to Giants by lowest margin in 5 years." Our cheerleader says, "If we work hard enough, we can beat the giants in 5 years." This, after 7 losing seasons.

Gotta hand it to ol' Duh'bya. His current shtick gives new meaning to the old adage, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

He tosses us numbers concerning THE "deficit" when, in fact, the problem is multiple "deficits" over a number of years. Those deficits have added to the accumulated “debt.”

And then he fails to tell us how our enormous, inflationary debt is going to go away simply because "deficits" are being reduced. The one does not follow from the other. We have to pay off the debt to get rid of it. That will take more fiscal discipline to accomplish than simply balancing the budget a few years running. Bill Clinton, to his credit, actually proved that.

Then again, what is Duh'bya supposed to say? To paraphrase John E.: It may be a pig in lipstick but, hey, if all you got is a pig and lipstick, what else can you do?

Guess he's planning on finding that surplus under the rock that is hiding Saddam's WMD's. Love how the Repubs are touting the increase in tax revenues while they are maxing out new Chinese credit cards every day. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors and the little people are eating their crumbs and buying it.

The Truth wrote:

please remember, these budget numbers do NOT include the cost of the Iraqi war..

__________________________

Wrong. The proposal also includes appropriations for the war in Afghanastan.

Johnny D,
Receipts are up because of record corporate profits and the already wealthy getting filthy rich under

Bush's fiscal policies. Even with your tax avoidance software, they can't hide it all (but they'll try). Meanwhile, Joe Average is faced with skyrocketing health-care cost, energy cost, housing cost, stagnant wages. So tell me how this "trickles down" to the rest of us? And if all this "expansion" is based on massive borrowing and obscenely huge debts, what administration gets to raise taxes to clean up the mess? Bush's economy is a house of cards and it's falling apart as we speak, just like the housing market.

Add two or three hundred billion to the bottom of each of those red bars on the chart to account for the war and the picture doesn't look quite as rosy, does it? Unless you war fans plan to cover the cost with your donations to the treasury, this chart isn't worth much.

It is encouraging to see that revenues are up, but the extra $600 billion or so in war spending may have as much to do with pumping up the economy as the tax cuts.

I find it amusing that the Republican blame the Democrats for the deficit and vice versa. Reality check, neither of the two parties shows restraint when running Congress, the Republicans in the last several years and the Democrats from the 1950s though the 80s.

Some form of a balanced budget law would be very helpful in reigning in both parties.

--- "Budget Deficit" vs. "National Debt" ---
Suppose you want to spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow. The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the loan. If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. The total borrowed is more than $9,000,000,000,000 and growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they still spend more than they get in. We pay interest on that huge debt.*
*From FederalBudget.com

dt, tax revenues come from several sources: corporate profits (if companies are making money that usually means the economy is good), individual earnings (the more people work and the more money they make, the more money the government makes), and other fees and taxes such as capital gains (the better the stock market, the more tax revenue).

People are working, people are making a decent wage, companies are making money, the stock market has been strong, so government coffers are reaping the rewards.

It's really a simple process. It's also fact that when taxes are higher, the economy is hurt. When folks have less money to spend and to invest, the government doesn't bring in as much money.

While government revenue did increase in the late 1990s, corporate profits, people working and strong stock market were the cause as well. One huge difference though. Much of the stock market growth in late 1990s was due to the tech boom, which crashed in 2000. The stock market began its crash in 2000. The economy started to falter. Hence, all those predictions of budget surpluses went by the wayside because the economy went into recession the end of 2000. Bush inherited a recession, government revenues went down, but spending did not go down with those revenues. Hence, the deficits.

Also, for you Loons, the government's fiscal year begins in October. The 2001 fiscal year began in October 2000 while Clinton was still president. The budget shortfall that occurred in FY2001 had nothing to do with Bush. It had nothing to do with Clinton either. It had everything to do with the recession that began in 2000.

lol

Just more of the usual: Silva sucking up to Bush, trying to make him look good. The Trib's editors love that kind of "coverage." They demand it, in fact.

There are a lot of item which are kept off the budget book. These are one-time items that somehow don't count, like the Irag war. Surely there are more items that we don't know about. I would like to see how the actual spending compares to the government tax reciepts. Looking at the budget numbers that only include the expenses they want to show us is a waste of time.

The Truth wrote:

please remember, these budget numbers do NOT include the cost of the Iraqi war..

__________________________

Wrong. The proposal also includes appropriations for the war in Afghanastan.

Posted by: Herbie H. | October 11, 2007 3:57 PM

--------------

Herbie:

Do you have a point, other than to prove you can't read?

Of course, the govt. is collecting more taxes these past few years!

On a $3.00 per gallon of gas price, about $1.50 to $2.00 is tax. It's call a backdoor tax on the American people.

When gas was $1.10 during Clinton, taxes were problably about 50 to 60 cents.

So, we know exactly where that tax increase collecction came from! Duh!!! Not because of a good economy. We are just paying more through the backdoor.

Of course, the dollar is a lot weaker now than it used to be. Those are just nominal dollars, not constant dollars, so the increase in revenues collected is not as large as it appears.

Obviously, if tax rates are held constant, growth in the economy is going to result in increased tax revenues. The thing that I'm not buying is that economic growth is solely a result of the tax cuts. How much economic growth is merely returning to the pre-terrorist attack levels? How much economic growth is due to increased military spending compared to pre-war times? How much economic growth is the artifical result of deficit spending and overextended credit?

Fiscal discipline. Great idea. Perhaps this president could discipline himself to sacrifice most of his $400,000 annual salary, and his $50,000 annual expense account. Which is all coming out of our pockets.

Oh, wait, that's right, the GOP only believes in "discipline" for the middle class, not for the wealthy elite.

"Born on third base and thought he hit a triple" -- Ann Richards

"People are working, people are making a decent wage, companies are making money, the stock market has been strong, so government coffers are reaping the rewards."

Average wages for all but the top 10% of wage earners have actually gone down in the past few years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/economy/census_incomepoverty_stats/index.htm

"That's because median earnings for individuals working full-time year-round actually fell for the third consecutive year. For men, earnings slipped 1.1 percent to a median of $42,300, while for women, earnings sank 1.2 percent to a median of $32,500."

It's a great economy if you are in the top 10%. Not so much for everyone else.

What about the "off budget" spending, like the Iraq War? Throw that trillion dollar disaster in and see if the budget balances in 2012. Also, cutting taxes increases tax revenue? That's like saying cutting my salary increases my paycheck. Gimme a break. Does anyone believe a word this president says anymore?
********************
Thank you telling the truth!
These are the types of lies that lead people to go about their day and look at American Idol in peace.
They actually believe what is being told to them by the government. But the government accounting is a big coverup. We are in very serious debt.
Borrowing money from China? They did not say when they would give that back.
Today Daley sent Chicago a giant tax hike - Need more money. Should the states be in this type of shape if the government is soon to be out of debt. This is clearly not true.

Clinton got away with it because he was President during a the largest Tech growth this country has and will ever see. People could walk from 1 job to another so they did not blink about a tax increase. I want the money I earn in my pocket. Not in some politicians who wants to spend it on their pork bellie projects. The bottom line is that it does not matter when or who, cut goverment spending without raising taxes. If Bush can sart the ball rolling, fine.

I used to work in accounting...all he'll need is a journal entry at the end of his term and viola! You have a surplus again!

It would be nice if they showed us the REAL numbers.

a blinkin, my post was two sentences making two distinct points; hence the word "also". The first - "wrong" - was in response to the Truth's erroneous assertion that the proposed budget does not include appropriations for the Iraq War. The second was pointing out that it also includes appropriations for Afghanistan. I apologize if this confused you. As for your last comment, I in know way intend to minimize my numerous shortcomings, but the inability to read is not among them.

Lou, you are another ignorant Lefty, aren't you? $1.50 to $2 a gallon of gas is tax??? Not even in the taxaholic state of Illinois is that correct.
Lou, if possible, let me educate you, but I know it's not possible. I'll try anyway.
The federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is about 20 cents a gallon.
In Illinois we have apprximately another 40 cents a gallon in taxes, depending on where you live.
Illinois has a sales tax on gas, which is running at approximately 20 to 25 cents a gallon. Illinois also has a gas tax.
In Chicago you have even higher sales tax on a gallon of gas in addition to a gas tax. Crooked County has a 10 cent a gallon gas tax, as well as more sales tax, which right now is about a penny on the dollar, and could be nearly 3 cents on the dollar if the new sales tax increase is passed. Oh, and Daley wants another 5 cent a gallon increase on gas taxes in the city. Then in the Chicago Metrpolitan area served by the RTA, there is another 5 cents a gallon gas tax.

But even adding up all these taxes, one does not come to $1.50 to $2 a gallon. And the federal portion has not increased under Bush. It did under Clinton.

Lou, the biggest reason gas is high, which began in 2000 under Clinton when Bill Richardson, then Energy Secretary, said, "we got caught with our pants down." (And Richardson was not talking about some meeting between him and Larry Craig.) No, Lou, the price of oil is running in the $70 per barrel range and has been higher, even passing $80. Much of that increase is due to increased demand in China and India. More demand, tighter supplies equal higher prices.
Was that too complicated for you, Lou???

I love how the receipts have skyrocketed in recent years, which clearly shows TAX CUTS are good, TAX INCREASES are bad.

I'm also glad that Bush has been reigning in spending in recent years, and especially now that the Demoncrats want to socialize everything in sight.

I just wish Bush was a little stronger of a deficit hawk the first few years of his administration.

Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 2:26 PM

John D you live in a dream world. You know, one where George Bush is a fiscal conservative and doesn't nation build. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid loser.

Budget deficits are a minor problem compared to the trade deficit.
The imbalance of trade caused by petroleum imports (no, drilling in ANWAR and increased domestic production won't make a dent in it), artificially cheap Chinese imports thanks to the yuans manipulation by the Chinese (other countries engage in this as well, but the lions share of the problem are the Chinese), and the lack of competitiveness of domestic auto makers ( union contracts), have been
an absolutely ENORMOUS drag on U.S GDP and our economic prosperity.
The chatter about lower budget deficits is akin to focusing on our beautiful new hairstyle, while our body remains deeply infected by numerous pathogen.

Lou, you are not correct, gas tax is a fixed rate, it does NOT vary with the price of gas.

And Tom O, you said "Unless you war fans plan to cover the cost with your donations to the treasury, this chart isn't worth much.
"

Gladly, as long as that means I get refunded all of my taxes that went to welfare, social programs, social security, and medicare and don't have to contribute toward those programs in the future.

It's really a simple process.

Posted by: John DD | October 11, 2007 4:17 PM

That's why you understand it so well, because you are a simpleton.

My fiscally conservative Republican interpretation of the above is that Social Security and retirement receipts are more than enough to cover payments in Health and Human Services so the US has plenty to cover my generation when I retire (plus pay for SCHIP), but the amount that corporations are kicking in towards paying the military is a tad weak.

C'mon Corporate America! Whatsamatter? You hate America or something? When the war is over, think of all the tax breaks you will get.

Nice rabbit punch, LIBune, pointing out the deficit has been over 2.4% of GNP for the past 40 years when everyone knows the GOP has held the presidency for 28 of those years.

But thanks to our President, by the next decade the budget should be balanced, and we can concentrate on paying off the massive debt that we owe. Here are the figures for the 21st Century, so far.

09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
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

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

That debt (the 2006 debt)can be paid off in, what, 19+ years at 430 billion a year?

What is the big deal?

If tax cuts spur the economy and make us all better off, I have a proposal for the soon to be republitard presidential candidate. Let's eliminate ALL federal taxes, and close down the IRS. After all this would obviously make the US economy take off so fast, and rocket so high, that we would all live like pigs in manure for the rest of our natural lives. IF that's what happened. But I'd also like to see the republicrites trying to spin that one after everything fell apart in the US. Can't have it both ways folks.

I've been noticing all the Repug. economics experts commenting on this thread. Thank goodness they have been able to show that deficit spending = a surplus; and that balancing a budget = plunder for Repugs.

Folks, I'm a rabid Democrat, but if someone can show that Repukes have any idea how to deal with financials, I'll be willing to listen.

Elijah: They have the Internet on Mars?

death by powerpoint

Mark, is there a way The Swamp could number the posts to help with referencing- when others wish to comment on another person's post? For instance, "BillBob at #19- I agree, however,...................."

earboy wouldn't know fiscal management if it came up an bit him on his pretzel eating ....

Sorry, no refunds Bob. But I like the idea of letting each of us select what our tax dollars get spent on.

This really is a white house document? The pic looks like a graph that would have been used in a 2nd grade science class. Some hired hack drew a pretty red and white background with a blue line pointing at the sky, and Bush wet himself. This stuff is ridiculous.

The Bush tax cuts work and our government is flush with cash. The economy will avoid a recession because of this.
44 percent of Americans according to IRS figures pay no taxes so you need the across the board tax reductions to continue American growth. The rich benefit but, so do the middle class the poor pay none.
Nancy Pelosi and her buddy Charles Rangel want to give you a 1 trillion dollar tax increase. The last time Americans got the biggest tax increase in history is when Bill Clinton signed the 1993 increase and the GOP won across the board in 1994.
If you liberals want to raise my taxes just send your checks to the U.S. Treasury for what you think they should be. No one's stopping you but that's not the liberal way you have to force confiscation on the nation. Face it it is just saying Stickem Up! Congratulations to President Bush for a good job with tax reduction. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Herbie H, Just an FYI...The reason Congress has been voting on supplemental spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan every six months is that the war expenditures are not included in the budget. The extra $200 billion Bush just asked Congress for is in addition to the $530 billion already allocated to the military in the budget.

Jerry White-

If you want lower taxes, please stop using the roads, tell the police and fire departments you no longer want protection, if you fly tell the TSA you don't want the other passengers screened, send your social security checks back to the government when you recieve them, take your kids out of school, hire your own personal military for protection (I hear Blackwater may have some guys available soon).

So tell me double d, when someone gets a home equity loan for $80,000 and proceeds to go on a buying spree, helping out the likes of Home Depot and other businesses until the money runs out, does that benefit the economy in the long term? (or the individual)

When big oil makes a killing with $3 a gallon gas, does that mean we all benefit from their largess?

If John D's (I mean DD's) income goes up 20% and a bunch of blue-collar guys see their income stagnate, the receipts to the national coffers go up (unless double d can shelter it all), but is this an indication that the majority of people benefit from Bush's tax policies?

When the stock market goes up, that benefits the investment class. Does Joe average who is struggling to make ends meet, let alone sock away any investments, feel the benefits of that?

When the economy started to slip because of the tech bust (the Ken Lay's of the world had no role in that, right DD?), democrats were even more adamant that tax cuts would be folly, and suggested instead that any surplus be paid toward the national debt. Yet republicans charged ahead with massive tax cuts, even when the economy had already begun a recovery. And they continued in that direction, even after engaging in an expensive war.

Then, predictably, repubs and DD run out the old "it's Clinton's fault", crap. Are republicans simply incapable of taking accountability for any of their mistakes?