Bushco is patting itself on the back for the deficit, and we're silent?

[iconoclastic cat]

So, I'm confused. Here is what I've been hearing about today:

White House slashes deficit forecast

By Caren Bohan and Tim Ahmann
Reuters
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; 4:14 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration slashed this year's budget deficit forecast by nearly $100 billion and credited its tax cuts for a surprise surge in revenue, but private analysts warned of long-term risks.

The White House forecast a $333 billion shortfall for fiscal 2005 ending Sept. 30. That was well below the $427 billion deficit it projected in February and down from 2004's record gap of $412 billion.


"We're ahead of projections now," President Bush said during a meeting of his Cabinet. "These numbers indicate that we're going to cut the deficit in half faster than the year 2009 so long as Congress holds the line on spending."

Democrats said the favorable report should not obscure what they called a record of "fiscal irresponsibility" under Bush, who presided over a shift from record surpluses to deficits in the hundreds of billions.

Nobody on DU seems to be talking about this. Daily Kos appears to be silent. I find this frightening, because if we cannot attack Bushco's blatant spin, they will distract the country from the huge, horrible mess they have made. Cutting the deficit is great, but they caused this huge deficit to begin with, as well as the mammoth, mounting debt that goes with it. In addition, they act (as usual) as if regular people will benefit from this: their taxes are lower, right? Cool! Yuk, yuk, yuk!

And where are the Democrats while the hogs are slapping their shiny, greasy backs as they chow down at the trough? They are telling people that we've misplaced our core values, and then allow slimy bastards whom I will not dignify with a hyperlink to slander us without a protest. Which blows.

Bloody hell.

[sniffa]

1. maybe some LTTEs then?

now that i've sent my first, i'm feeLing it.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Sure. Maybe some phone calls.

Maybe some threats of not voting for Obama's ass the next freakin' time.

[Carla in Ca]

16. Here's the rub...

They are borrowing from SS, and, the important thing is they are NOT talking about is the DEBT...that is the key to this, the debt.

[StClone]

3. Wow this is what they cite for success

I guess with Iraq as the model...

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Exactly!

Why are we not yelling that?

[Al-CIAda]

4. I saw the fucker on TV today LECTURING the press about being

'responsible' with the people's money. This guy with a willing congress pisses away the surplus and gives away the country to corporations and we get Bu$h fucking lecturing us about being responsible with taxpayer money?!

Go fuck yourself!

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Yep. So why aren't we storming the gate with that?

What's with the silence? I know other people were out and about today and heard the GOP's circlejerk!

[RobertSeattle]

7. It's pretty self-evident Bullcrap

It's like when they say they predict there are going to be 17,000 DUI related deaths in a year, but only 16,000 occur. Some success.

[iconoclastic cat]

10. It's not self-evident to people who have no critical thinking skills.

[RobertSeattle]

12. Hmmmmm

OK, better Freeper analogy...

"It's like being told repairs for your double-wide are going to cost $1000 but they end up only being $800 - it's still money out of your childen's pockets"

[iconoclastic cat]

15. "And they come with a 300% increase in your credit card debt!"

[enid602]

8. Dollar

Gosh, I think this is the first time that the administration has actually addressed deficits and whatnot. I have noticed, however that during the last 2 or 3 days the Dollar has been reversing its earlier gains against the Euro. My 40% foreign currency-denominated IRA is really starting to take off. For the administration to even mention deficits and fiscal responsibility so late in the game might be an indication that the Dollar's problems are continuing.

[iconoclastic cat]

9. Nice! See, someone who speaks the language of finance should

be calling them on this crap. Go, you! Write it down and send it out!
:woohoo:

[Lexingtonian]

11. nobody's responding

because nobody knows the details and real reasons yet. It's all supply side propaganda at the moment.

I'm pretty sure the 'one-off' explanation is essentially correct. I'd guess the "repatriation" tax break Republicans gave to overseas profits is the key element- it allows corporations to bring profits into the U.S. very cheaply that they've held in banks overseas for a lot of years. Basically, the U.S. Treasury got $100 billion in the short term for what corporations would have had to pay ~$300 billion for without the tax break over the past decade and next decade or two.

In short, the IRS got $100 billion really easily but Congress allowed taxpayers in general and itself to get screwed out of $200 billion. That's my guess, knowing how Republicans work and the whole supply side sham.

But, I don't know. I'll wait for Paul Krugman to write it up this weekend.

[wisteria]

13. Your right!

Where are the Dems challenging Bush on this economic news. Claiming that our debit is less than originally forcasted,based on just very recent numbers doesn't mean anything other than than we are not in as much debit right now as we originally forcasted, and leaving out the cost of the war in the budget calls for strong comments from Dems. Couldn't the msm find a Democratic willing to discuss this "news"?

[iconoclastic cat]

14. They need to hear from us about this.

[snippy]

17. This year's deficit will be the third largest deficit in US history.

The original White House estimate of $427 billion would have been the largest in history. The only two years in which the deficit exceeded the new, downwardly revised, estimate of $333 billion were 2003 and 2004.

A deficit of "only" $333 billion will mark the first time in three years that the deficit has not exceeded 3% of GDP. Since 1960, the deficit has exceeded that level 14 times. Each and every time was under a republican president.

Since 1960, the total accumulated deficits of the federal government equals approximately $4 trillion. Over 90% of that total has been accumulated under republican presidents. The last republican president not to run massive deficits was Eisenhower.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/hist01z3.xls

[gratuitous]

18. Wow, the administration "slashes" its deficit estimate!

"See America? We're not quite as big a bunch of crooks as you thought!"

Of course, these are only the "forecasted" deficits, not an actual reduction in the size of the deficit. I suppose there's a story here, but I don't quite see it. Unless you're one of those people who takes a weather "forecast" as the gospel truth.

[the_outsider]

19. Angry Bear deconstructs the noise

http://www.angrybear.blogspot.com