Home › Blogs › Lisa's blog ›

One helluva deficit

Submitted by Lisa on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 06:14

So the results are in and we have a loser...the taxpayers. Yes, the White House administration has completed its 2009 fiscal estimates and Bush is expected to leave us with a record-high deficit of 482 billion dollars. That is, if you're keeping score at home, $1600.00 for every man, woman, and child in America; in addition to the $32,000 each of us already owes to the existing debt.

Bush's record $482 bn deficit surpasses the nation's previous two high-water marks, set in 2004 and 2008 -- both also under the Bush administration.

To state the obvious, this is not a sustainable fiscal policy. No one would suggest that any one of us run our households this way: spending as fast as possible while simultaneously decreasing income. People often ask why I - a Republican - would refuse to support my party's candidate. Well, McCain has done little to convince me that he'll do anything other than continue his predecessor's fiscal habits. And when you look at numbers like these, do you really even have to ask?

0
Your rating: None

Comments

A few data points......

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 06:55.

Well, McCain was against Medicare prescription drugs, which was probably the largest single increase in discretionary spending of late. And I will not belabor the pork barrel issue.

And pray tell, please find a single spending program besides the Iraq War that Obama and the Democrats have shown one whit of interest in even restraining budgetary growth?

Farm subsidies? Ethanol subsidies?  Slush funds to liberal activist groups? Baling out banks?  

I think Harry Reid's hometown paper put it best

The GOP deserves what it gets this fall, but if you think a President Obama paired with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid represent a move toward budget discipline, we've got a time share in North Dakota you might like.

<!-- endclickprintinclude -->

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/19654084.html

I never suggested the

Submitted by Lisa on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 07:02.

I never suggested the Democrats were going to rein in spending. But at least they would have the balls to tax to pay for what they want. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the deflationary dollar.

And "besides the Iraq war" is an awfully big besides, don't you think?

I can't in good conscience support spend and spend (and then refund taxes) fiscal policy anymore. That's my point.

There are two ways to reduce the deficit*...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:27.

...by growing the economy or by taxing the middle class; which would you prefer?

* Neither will work if uncontrolled government spending isn't significantly curtailed.

ex animo

davidfarrar

The history of undivided Democrat control of government

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 18:38.

is not supportive of your central thesis

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm

A review of the 1992-95 budget data shows a dramatic change in the levels of one spending category affected by policy changes -- discretionary defense spending. If this defense spending had remained at its $303 billion level of 1992, the deficit adjusted for major economic and accounting factors would have been virtually unchanged since 1992. .......

The 1993 tax increase merely funded an increase in other federal spending. Moreover, deficits would be higher if President Clinton's proposed "stimulus," or "investment," spending increases had not been stopped by the Republican minority in Congress. To the extent nondefense deficit reduction has been realized, it is due to stopping, not implementing, President Clinton's policies.

The idea the Democrats would apply taxes to balance the budget might sound good, but they'll never implement it in practice.

The 1990's had a non-senile Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin and Newt "shut down the government" Gingrich driving the agenda. Sadly, we are far from the economic "perfect calm" these gentlemen cobbled together

 

This is the place for the financially sensible, right?

Submitted by DevilsAdvocate on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 08:01.

So lets use the real number...$562 Billion. That is the defecit when one adds in the 80 billion in war costs the Bush administration left out of its estimates. I really don't understand what use an "estimate" is when you leave out 14.23 percent of the total amount.

Point taken....

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 21:04.

...but war costs are considered an expense that rightfully belongs to future generations to help bear the financial burden since they will be among its beneficiaries. Merely complaining about the deficit is not the point here, while controlling irresponsible government growth is.

ex animo

davidfarrar

"war costs' are also considered a nonrecurring expense

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 21:10.

wars always end, other government programs don't