First, we will not get to a balanced budget under Bush. He expects to have over a 200 billion deficit in 2008. He can not repay the debt and lower the interest if we do not balance the budget

--And another thing, to get things done, we need to spend...so therefore, we will always have a debt...maybe smaller, maybe larger, i don't know...

Methinks there be a severe case of denial among the Bushkins. Still, does it matter? Surely, in '08 the majority will continue to vote their denials.

Bush in 2008... for another great 4 years done by a mans man, not some whimp from the left.

Aye, Captain Ahab, the great white whale of a man will still be the next admiral of the ship of state.

Methinks there be a severe case of denial among the Bushkins. Still, does it matter? Surely, in '08 the majority will continue to vote their denials.

--Not sure....btw, i'm not a buskin...(independent)just certain topics (like this one) i see people make stupid comments (IMO) and i have to comment on them...

Aye, Captain Ahab, the great white whale of a man will still be the next admiral of the ship of state.

--oh god, not another Nixon, that would be enough to make me become a democrat...it would be the end of the Republican party...

When you see $500 Billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR going to pay the interest on a national debt that will be 10 times larger then it was in 1980, tell me we do not have a MAJOR problem. That interest will continue until we repay the debt which can not happen under policies like we are following. Add SS, Medicare, Medicade, Homeland defense, Trade, oil prices and the loss of good paying jobs and the picture is NOT GOOD! The economy is growing but not great. In fact, the Bush administration lowered their projection on the GDP growth rate two weeks ago. The Fed Chairman also said growth was slower then expected but ongoing.

When you see $500 Billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR going to pay the interest on a national debt that will be 10 times larger then it was in 1980,

Hey yo-yo... You can't compare what was to what is! Ever heard of "inflation"? Of course expenditures will be larger now than they were in 1980. And as per usual, YOU ignore the fact that the deficit will be "SMALLER" this time around than what was "predicted"!

The economy is growing but not great. In fact, the Bush administration lowered their projection on the GDP growth rate two weeks ago. The Fed Chairman also said growth was slower then expected but ongoing.

And the above line is just more BS! Try explaining away this!

From The Washington Post, headline is linked. More bad news for the folks that wish that the economy in the U.S. was tanking.... Buried in the Business section of the paper, rather than front page news, but still at least reported. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link>Economic Growth, Tax Receipts Combine to Reduce Deficit By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 2, 2005; Page D01 An unanticipated surge of tax payments may push the 2005 federal budget deficit as much as $100 billion below official forecasts, leaving Republicans to claim vindication in their theory that lowering tax rates actually boosts tax receipts. In addition, this week the Commerce Department reported a solid economic growth rate of 3.8 percent for the first three months of 2005, an improvement on the earlier 3.5 percent estimate and more ammunition for Republican boasts that their tax cuts are the cause of this performance. "Sustained, strong . . . growth confirms that our policies continue to boost the economy and tax revenues," said Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Budget Committee. But senior budget analysts, including the Republican who heads the Congressional Budget Office, cautioned this week that higher tax revenues may be a one-time phenomenon that in no way addresses the nation's grave deficit challenge. Much of the increase could stem from temporary factors, said CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist. The major corporate tax cut of 2004 provided a one-year "tax holiday" for multinational corporations to bring home overseas profits at a reduced tax rate, and companies may be responding aggressively. Also, a large tax break for business investment ended Dec. 31, effectively raising some corporate tax rates this year, Holtz-Eakin said. Finally, strong stock market gains last year, coupled with lingering jitters from the market swoon of 2000, may have produced strong executive bonuses and a rush to cash in stocks and stock options, other economists said. "I find it difficult to get as excited about this as some people" are, Holtz-Eakin said. For longtime champions of supply-side economic theory, the excitement is palpable. Since the political rise of Ronald Reagan, such conservative economists have contended that cuts in income tax rates and in taxes on investment income would generate economic growth that would in turn produce more revenue, possibly enough to pay for the tax cuts. The theory was popularized by economist Arthur Laffer and his Laffer curve. The government's take this tax season validates that theory, conservatives say. On a single day, June 15, the Treasury took in a record $61 billion. Through June 30, three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year, receipts indicate the Treasury will reap $80 billion to $100 billion more in taxes than the CBO predicted in January. Individual tax payments have risen 21 percent beyond their level at this time last year. Corporate tax receipts are 48 percent ahead. Despite slightly higher-than-expected spending, the federal deficit could come in at $325 billion to $350 billion, significantly better than the White House's $427 billion projection or the CBO's $400 billion forecast. Some Wall Street economists say the deficit could be as low as $300 billion. "The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value," anti-tax activist Stephen Moore wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

When you see $500 Billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR going to pay the interest on a national debt that will be 10 times larger then it was in 1980, tell me we do not have a MAJOR problem.

It's not "major". We have had debts before, we will get out of them like before. Nobody is losing their life over it, the world is not going to end because of the "debt" col. Realize that.

Add SS, Medicare, Medicade, Homeland defense, Trade, oil prices and the loss of good paying jobs and the picture is NOT GOOD!

Col your version of "not good" is way off from everybody elses. I see you keep bringing up good paying jobs are losing, proof please?

You are so full of BS. Every major analyst including the Fed Chairman has warned the danger of the growing debt and the interest that we will be required to pay on that debt. $500 billion in interest is MORE then we will be spending on defense in 2008. How can anyone justify paying more on interest, that buys us nothing, then on national defense?

When the Fed can no longer pay the Medicare claims (about 15 years) and SS drops to 75% of expected payments, see if what I have said is wrong. Today the stock market dropped over 100 points. Have you looked at you IRA account lately? Tell me the stock market is douing well and look at the record oil price of $61. All that increased price for oil goes from Amereicans to others and increases the trade deficit. We are doing REAL WELL under the Bush policies!

Today the stock market dropped over 100 points

--Its done that before, not like is anything new...

Tell me the stock market is douing well and look at the record oil price of $61. All that increased price for oil goes from Amereicans to others and increases the trade deficit.

--And yet more and more people are traveling...hmmm, what does that say to you COL...

Despite slightly higher-than-expected spending, the federal deficit could come in at $325 billion to $350 billion, significantly better than the White House's $427 billion projection or the CBO's $400 billion forecast. Some Wall Street economists say the deficit could be as low as $300 billion. "The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value," anti-tax activist Stephen Moore wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The encyclopedic Drmiler is in truth the Wizard of Oz.

This thing Gene has over Bush & the Guard is taking on a truly "mad scientist" quality. I can't frickin' believe it's a topic of heated discussion in July of 2005.

And Gene - the White House "commented" on the fabricated Killian memos. You suppose that proves they were real? If you do, you're more demented than even I thought. There appears to be no way to prove the Downing Street memos ever actually existed, but that won't stop folks like you from taking the Downing Street fiction as gospel.

Further, when anything about the US looks or is bad, you blame Bush. When anything about the US looks or is good, you either ignore it or claim it's good despite Bush or would be a whole lot better were it not for Bush. There's never been a President with more sweeping absolute control of every facet of American life than Bush, at least according to you - by your claims, he's the most powerful man in history, period. You... just... don't... like... Bush. We get it. Thanks. Glad you've made that clear. Duly noted. For the record. Filed for reference.

Cheers,
Daiwa

When the Fed can no longer pay the Medicare claims (about 15 years) and SS drops to 75% of expected payments, see if what I have said is wrong. Today the stock market dropped over 100 points. Have you looked at you IRA account lately? Tell me the stock market is douing well and look at the record oil price of $61. All that increased price for oil goes from Amereicans to others and increases the trade deficit. We are doing REAL WELL under the Bush policies!

Col, the state market goes up and down. I guess you will tell me under a democratic President it didn't do that, right? And yes I haved looked at my IRA's and other financial data. I'm doing pretty good right now col, actually better since Bush has been in office. As usual col, you ignore all economic data except the one's that you find some way to blame Bush for. You are pathetic.

Further, when anything about the US looks or is bad, you blame Bush. When anything about the US looks or is good, you either ignore it or claim it's good despite Bush or would be a whole lot better were it not for Bush. There's never been a President with more sweeping absolute control of every facet of American life than Bush, at least according to you - by your claims, he's the most powerful man in history, period. You... just... don't... like... Bush. We get it. Thanks. Glad you've made that clear. Duly noted. For the record. Filed for reference.

Exactly.

Despite slightly higher-than-expected spending, the federal deficit could come in at $325 billion to $350 billion, significantly better than the White House's $427 billion projection or the CBO's $400 billion forecast. Some Wall Street economists say the deficit could be as low as $300 billion. "The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value," anti-tax activist Stephen Moore wrote in the Wall Street Journal. The encyclopedic Drmiler is in truth the Wizard of Oz.

Oh, I see how it is now. When you don't like the message or what it says, then make fun of the message AND the messanger to make it go away. Just do not forget "I'm the all powerful Wizard of Oz"!

Drmiler

First Bush has understated the expected deficit by 50 Billion by only counting 30 of the 80 Billion for Iraq. He reduced the deficit by another 200 billion by deducting the 200 billion surplus from SS and Medicare. Using his so called revised estimate of 350 billion, after adding 250 billion for SS/Medicade and Iraq we are at 600 billion!