One solid, undeniable reason to vote against Bush.

[sasser]

Come on, Republicans, let's see you spin your way out of this one.

[igloo]

I have an idea--instead of waiting for Republicans to "spin" their way out of this (which would be a waste of time--right?)--why don't you try and think (blind hope on that one) and take a stab at what may have contributed to a deficit......sit back, think, and take a stab at it

It is really is more valuable to think on your own than simply follow Michael Moore.....really

[alexx]

Ofcourse were in a deficit. The economoy has been in a recession for most of Bush's presidency. We took over 2 countries. Still have lots of troops in both those contries. We also absorbed the biggest terrorist attack in the world ever, on a major financial area. After all this you expect the country to be in a surplus?

[obby]

I have an idea--instead of waiting for Republicans to "spin" their way out of this (which would be a waste of time--right?)--why don't you try and think (blind hope on that one) and take a stab at what may have contributed to a deficit......sit back, think, and take a stab at it

It is really is more valuable to think on your own than simply follow Michael Moore.....really

You beat me to it.

We can always put our guards down and be reminded the hard way.

[BRIANC1046]

come on.. these other presidents have faced obstacles also.. we've been in war before.. I don't expect a surplus.. but when a president takes us to -304 billion below our surplus.. which as you can see if more than any president since Johnson.. I think we should be concerned!

Ofcourse were in a deficit. The economoy has been in a recession for most of Bush's presidency. We took over 2 countries. Still have lots of troops in both those contries. We also absorbed the biggest terrorist attack in the world ever, on a major financial area. After all this you expect the country to be in a surplus?

[alexx]

Its a lot of factors combined. This deficit was unavoidable.

[sasser]

come on.. these other presidents have faced obstacles also.. we've been in war before.. I don't expect a surplus.. but when a president takes us to -304 billion below our surplus.. which as you can see if more than any president since Johnson.. I think we should be concerned!

True... But not anywhere nearly as Bush. How can you trust a man who ran his oil companies to the ground to sustain an economy. He has already ran the war chest to the ground as it is... to the tune of 12 billion dollars!!

This idiot can't run a laundromat let alone the economy of an entire nation.

Going by the logic of the "blame Clinton" brass they may as well say he's still the President.

And Igloo. Nice poor excuse of a way of trying to spin your way out of this. The evidence is there. These numbers do not lie.

Stick to your "blame Clinton" theme. It will further your advancement into the moron club.

[igloo]

True... But not anywhere nearly as Bush. How can you trust a man who ran his oil companies to the ground to sustain an economy. He has already ran the war chest to the ground as it is... to the tune of 12 billion dollars!!

This idiot can't run a laundromat let alone the economy of an entire nation.

Going by the logic of the "blame Clinton" brass they may as well say he's still the President.

And Igloo. Nice poor excuse of a way of trying to spin your way out of this. The evidence is there. These numbers do not lie.

Stick to your "blame Clinton" theme. It will further your advancement into the moron club.

[sasser]

Face it... If Bush couldn't even keep his own oil companies afloat by running them into the ground, how can you expect Bush to sustain a nations' economy? He could not even run a laundromat let alone the economy of an entire nation. Not only that, he's running the war chest to the ground.... 12 billion dollars short!! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.a...ense%20Spending

For those republicans who blame Clinton for the deficit, going by that logic, they may as well say HE is STILL the president.

Today I ran into this:

In Canton Ohio today, Bush insisted the economy is improving (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5835340), but according to his own administrations' report, his claims of an improving economy proves nothing more than misleading. http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=236761

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-bzdef313913654jul31,0,3126326.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print

"Snooze" all you want Igloo. It isn't furthering or adding to your debate. You are only proving my points.

I like to see you republicans STILL try to spin your way out of this...

[siceone]

Face it... If Bush couldn't even keep his own oil companies afloat by running them into the ground, how can you expect Bush to sustain a nations' economy? He could not even run a laundromat let alone the economy of an entire nation. Not only that, he's running the war chest to the ground.... 12 billion dollars short!! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.a...ense%20Spending

For those republicans who blame Clinton for the deficit, going by that logic, they may as well say HE is STILL the president.

Today I ran into this:

In Canton Ohio today, Bush insisted the economy is improving (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5835340), but according to his own administrations' report, his claims of an improving economy proves nothing more than misleading. http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=236761

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-bzdef313913654jul31,0,3126326.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print

"Snooze" all you want Igloo. It isn't furthering or adding to your debate. You are only proving my points.

I like to see you republicans STILL try to spin your way out of this...

do you have a degree in finance or economics, or know exactly how oil companies are run?

if not shut up you obviously don't know the facts.

By the way there was a PROJECTED deficit before bush passed most of his major legislation if you knew anything you would know that deficits are projected out 5 years and are based upon the past 5 years. which if you paid attention to anything you would know was based on THE DOT COM BUBBLE AND PROJECTED REVENUE AND THE FAULTY ACCOUNTING WHICH HAPPENED UNDER CLINTON AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION GOING EASY ON ENRON.

do your reasearch.

[sasser]

do you have a degree in finance or economics, or know exactly how oil companies are run?

if not shut up you obviously don't know the facts.

By the way there was a PROJECTED deficit before bush passed most of his major legislation if you knew anything you would know that deficits are projected out 5 years and are based upon the past 5 years. which if you paid attention to anything you would know was based on THE DOT COM BUBBLE AND PROJECTED REVENUE AND THE FAULTY ACCOUNTING WHICH HAPPENED UNDER CLINTON AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION GOING EASY ON ENRON.

do your reasearch.

Yup. My theory of the rightist "blame Clinton" logic is correct. Clinton is still the President. Continue along with that. It will do you well in the advancement of complete idiocy.

Blubbering out of total arrogance as well as your ignorance based on the facts posted isn't going to further your cause. Give it up. Don't use false assumption that I don't know the facts when I already provided them. It doesn't take an economist to figure these out. It's a matter of putting two and two together. Where's your facts? Lets see them. You want to talk about research, take your own advice because I don't see any research coming from you except over-inflated bloviated drivel.

[siceone]

Nice to know that you admit HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. what I wrote is the truth it was in response to your Inference that it's all bushes fault. I didn't say that bush hasn't made some poor economic choices but he isn't the reason for the recession or for the loss of jobs. Sorry.

is Bloviate the new buzz word or something. Big words don't make you smart.

you're a good elitest liberal

[igloo]

is Bloviate the new buzz word or something. Big words don't make you smart.

you're a good elitest liberal

or just an imbecile

[fearlesss]

Actually, there are many factors that are the cause of the bush so called deficit. The huge amount of spending in defense, governement spending on public projects, and relief etc. Budget defient is when spending exceeds hard reveunve. Clinton had surplus because he made huges cuts in overall spending. what that the graph does not tell you is where those cuts those came from. therefore, the graph assumes that ceteris paribus but that is not correct. The graph is alos miss labeled as it reflects multiple years, deficit refers to 1 budget, debt refers to compound deficits.

As for the recession, any economy naturely goes through cycles, the are period where the economy peaks and then goes down and bottoms out and goes back up till it peaks and then back down. it is the way back down from the peak that it the recession. the us ecomony was on the way down when clinton left often as the "tech bubble" popped. this is a clear indicdator that the econbomy would head into a recession. 9 11 only pushed the slide futher down. the government takes measures to prevent this but they do not always work since the public reaction to events is unknown. but cutss in interest rates and increases in government spending all increase the money to the general pubic and thus their spending when the reverse is down money is taken out of the system. these "fixes" are not over night and are often seen in the future.

So is bush reposnebility for the "recession" ? no it the economy was tanking.

ohh yes I do have a degree in finance

[sobeton]

AUGUST 2, 2004

NEWS ANALYSIS

By Howard Gleckman

Bush's Biggest Deficit: Consistency

This year's budgetary shortfall will be bigger than ever -- but by White House math, that's a victory

In its latest fiscal forecast, released on July 30, the Bush Administration projects the deficit for the year ending on Sept. 30 will hit $445 billion. That would be $70 billion more than the record $375 billion deficit we hit last year. According to the White House and its GOP allies, this shows great progress in the battle against deficits.

"Because the President's economic policies are working," says Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten, "We are ahead of pace to meet the goal of cutting the deficit in half within five years." Adds House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Okla.): "Our budget outlook has significantly improved in the past seven months due to strong economic growth and spending restraint."

MISOVERESTIMATE. Say what? How does the idea of the deficit getting $70 billion bigger translate into fiscal success? It's easy, when you combine Washington's bizarre budget accounting rules, the increasingly superheated campaign season, and some Orwellian rhetoric. You see, last February, President Bush projected the deficit for this year would hit $521 billion. Now, thanks to a growing economy, the Bushies figure it will come in $76 billion below that number. Thus, we have a whole new way to game the budget debate: Overestimate deficits at the beginning of the year, come in below that forecast, and declare victory.

It's a pity that the real world isn't that rosy.Look more closely at the Bush numbers and you'll see that spending from '03 to '04 is up by a staggering $160 billion. Only $14 billion of that can be attributed to homeland security and Pentagon spending, including the war in Iraq. The rest is scattered throughout government, with much of it in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The deficit would have been even bigger, except that a growing economy is boosting tax revenues across the board from last year. Individual income tax receipts are expected to be up by $23 billion, corporate taxes up by a whopping $50 billion -- thanks to higher profits -- and Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes up by $18 billion. Those Social Security taxes, of course, are not saved to pay retirement benefits. They are spent on the rest of government.

THE REAL NUMBERS. And what about Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half in five years? The new Bush budget claims he can do it even faster -- by 2007. But don't hold your breath. That happy prediction assumes the U.S. will spend no more money on Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 30. And it ignores the need to fix the dreaded alternative minimum tax (AMT). Without a fix, the levy will hit more than 30 million taxpayers by the end of the decade.

The reality is that protecting millions of middle-class taxpayers from the AMT would cost close to $50 billion a year over the next decade. Once Washington fixes the AMT and pays for the war in Iraq, you can add at least $100 billion a year to Bush's deficit estimates over the next five years. That means forgetting about all that cutting-the-deficit-in-half business.

If anyone pays attention to the real numbers, the fiscal situation is more bad news for Bush's reelection chances and good news for his newly minted Democratic challenger, John Kerry. The bad news for Kerry, of course, is that if gets elected, he'll actually have to do something about this mess. And while he at least can credibly claim he won't make matters much worse, he hasn't yet shown any inclination to make things better.

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

Gleckman is senior correspondent in the Washington bureau of BusinessWeek

Edited by Beth Belton