"Budget Deficit Cut by 1/2" Transcript: Bush's news conference

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Transcript: Bush's news conference

POSTED: 12:11 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2006



First, I want to briefly mention that today we've released the actual budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended on September the 30th. These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal budget deficit in half, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule.

The budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work. By restraining spending in Washington and allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, economy's creating jobs and reducing the deficit and making our nation a more prosperous nation for all our citizens.

I'm going to talk about the pro-growth economic policies that helped bring about the dramatic reduction in the deficit this afternoon. And I'm going to remind our fellow citizens that good tax policy has a lot to do with keeping the economy strong, and therefore we'll continue to urge the Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/bush.transcript/index.html

This comes in the wake of the DOW reporting it's forth record breaking close in two weeks time:

Wall St gains; Dow up 9 pts in its fourth record close

The Dow Jones industrial average set its fourth record close in two weeks yesterday, finishing less than a point above its previous closing high.

After a lackluster day of trading, broader indexes also rose slightly, putting the Standard & Poor's 500 back near its 5 1/2 year highs.

Investors nudged stocks slightly higher in gains in advance of Alcoa's after-the-bell quarterly financial report, which traditionally marks the start of earnings season.

The Dow Jones industrials rose 9.36 points, or 0.08%, to close at 11,867.17. Its previous record, set Thursday, was 11,866.69.

Broader stock indicators were higher. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 2.76 points, or 0.20%, to 1,353.42, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 3.66 points, or 0.16%, to 2,315.43.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/n...ourthrecordclose/market/stocks/article/244743

****ing Bush and his failed economic policies.

 

[Navy Pride]

****ing Bush and his failed economic policies.

This is information you will see very little of in the liberal media my friend......

 

[Stinger]

And if you look at it in it's proper perspective, deficit as a percent of revenues it REALLY is quite low. Watch the libs try to discount count the current deficit by comparing it to the revenue levels of the 90's.

 

[Iriemon]

This comes in the wake of the DOW reporting it's forth record breaking close in two weeks time:



****ing Bush and his failed economic policies.

Bush: "These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal budget deficit in half, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule."

An outright lie.

The CBO.gov reports a "total budget" deficit of $253 billion -- which is using surplus SS tax receipts (which are supposed to be saved for the boomers' retirment) of $183 billion as general tax revenues. The actual operating deficit, excluding the surplus SS tax receipts that are not supposed to be general tax revenues, is $431 billion.

"Total" Budget deficit - including SS

2000 236.4
2001 127.4
2002 -157.8
2003 -375.3
2004 -412.1
2005 -318.3
2006* -253.0

Even using these phony numbers Bush has not "cut the deficit in half. He hasn't even cut it in half from *his* worst year; it is still $489 worse than the budget he inherited.

Looking at the true, "on-budget" government operating deficit, Bush isn't even close to halving his own worst year, much less coming close to what he started with:

"On-budget" deficit

2000 86.6
2001 -33.3
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4
2005 -493.6
2006* -431.5

Note: 2000-2005 figures based on CBO.gov historical tables, 2006 is based on figures in the Oct 2006 Monthly budget review.

Bush: The budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work. By restraining spending in Washington and allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, economy's creating jobs and reducing the deficit and making our nation a more prosperous nation for all our citizens.

I'm going to talk about the pro-growth economic policies that helped bring about the dramatic reduction in the deficit this afternoon. And I'm going to remind our fellow citizens that good tax policy has a lot to do with keeping the economy strong, and therefore we'll continue to urge the Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.

What a crock of ****. He took a Government that had a surplus budget, it is now borrowing more than $1/2 a trillion a year for the fourth straight year, and he has the gall to claim that his "pro-growth" policies are "reducing the deficit".

Only a flat out liar would claim that going from a +236/+86 billion surplus (total/on-budget) to a -253/-431 billion deficit is a "dramatic reduction" in the deficit.

I wonder if the conservative MSM media will report the truth. Doubt it.

 

[Iriemon]

And if you look at it in it's proper perspective, deficit as a percent of revenues it REALLY is quite low. Watch the libs try to discount count the current deficit by comparing it to the revenue levels of the 90's.

LOL -- no we can't compare it to the '90s, can we! Heh heh

 

[Deegan]

No matter how some may try and spin this, this is a very good start, and proves that tax cuts work, now let's keep that spending down, and we are off to a very good start indeed!

 

[Stinger]

LOL -- no we can't compare it to the '90s, can we! Heh heh

Go ahead and compare revenues and deficits as a percentage.

 

[Iriemon]

No matter how some may try and spin this, this is a very good start, and proves that tax cuts work, now let's keep that spending down, and we are off to a very good start indeed!

How does borrowing $1/2 a trillion every year "prove" tax cuts work?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Iriemon - your disappointment in the decreasing deficit is so noted.

 

[Iriemon]

Go ahead and compare revenues and deficits as a percentage.

year - Rev. - on-budget deficit/surplus - %

1992 1091.3 -340.5 -31.20%
1993 1154.4 -300.4 -26.02%
1994 1258.6 -258.9 -20.57%
1995 1351.8 -226.4 -16.75%
1996 1453.1 -174.1 -11.98%
1997 1579.3 -103.3 -6.54%
1998 1721.8 -30.0 -1.74%
1999 1827.5 1.9 0.10%
2000 2025.2 86.6 4.28%
2001 1991.2 -33.3 -1.67%
2002 1853.2 -317.5 -17.13%
2003 1782.3 -536.1 -30.08%
2004 1880.1 -567.4 -30.18%
2005 2153.9 -493.6 -22.92%
2006 2406.0 -431.5 -17.93%

From a surplus that was a positive 4% of revenues to a deficit that is a negative 18% of revenues in 2006. That is some "dramatic reduction" as Bush calls it.

Personally, I'd call the change from a negative 31% they year before Clinton took office to a positive 4% surplus when he left a "dramatic reduction", but that is just my opinion.

 

[Deegan]

How does borrowing $1/2 a trillion every year "prove" tax cuts work?

You are obviously confusing even yourself with this fuzzy math, tax cuts work, they don't work as well as just taking the needed funds from the rich, having them pass that cost on to the lower classes, and then investing elsewhere to avoid those costs further, but they do work. The rich are the rich for a reason, you can't control them, you can't take more then they are willing to give, I know this drives you and your friends nuts, but those are the facts.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon - your disappointment in the decreasing deficit is so noted.

It's great that it is a little better. But it is mostly through accounting gimmickery and outright dishonesty they make claims about "improving the deficit" or cutting it in half like that is some great freaking accomplishment.

Personally, I am not satisfied with 400+ billion deficits and the Govt borrowing another $1/2 trillion this year. I *am* extremely disappointed given that in 2000 the Govt had a surplus and the budget was in control and is now almost $3 trillion more in debt. And people say that is proof the tax cuts work?

I could say your approval of the government borrowing $1/2 a trillion a year is so noted as well.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I could say your approval of the government borrowing $1/2 a trillion a year is so noted as well.

I suppose you could. Start a thread on it and we'll see how I respond.

 

[Iriemon]

You are obviously confusing even yourself with this fuzzy math, tax cuts work, they don't work as well as just taking the needed funds from the rich, having them pass that cost on to the lower classes, and then investing elsewhere to avoid those costs further, but they do work. The rich are the rich for a reason, you can't control them, you can't take more then they are willing to give, I know this drives you and your friends nuts, but those are the facts.

In what sense have they "worked"? I agree with you the rich pay less taxes as a percentage of there income, if that is what you mean I agree.

But in terms of the Govt budget, I can't see how you can claim they "worked" when the govt borrowed another $572 billion dollars this year. That is not fuzzy math, that is fact:

Total Govt debt:

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

 

[Deegan]

In what sense have they "worked"? I agree with you the rich pay less taxes as a percentage of there income, if that is what you mean I agree.

You know exactly how they work, you just don't want to seem to contradict yourself here, and I understand that. They work by giving people more of their own money to spend, invest etc, thus more taxes flow in to the coffers this way. By raising taxes, people become more tight fisted, they don't spend, they don't invest, thus historically bringing in the same amount of revenue, but doing greater damage to the economy. I choose plan A, you choose plan B, mine helps everyone, yours puts the screws to everyone, especially the rich, those who you are really out to effect, and it would seem in a negative way.

 

[Iriemon]

You know exactly how they work, you just don't want to seem to contradict yourself here, and I understand that. They work by giving people more of their own money to spend, invest etc, thus more taxes flow in to the coffers this way.

Huh? How does giving people more money by paying less to the Govt make more money flow into the coffers? It is just the opposite.

By raising taxes, people become more tight fisted, they don't spend, they don't invest, thus historically bringing in the same amount of revenue, but doing greater damage to the economy.

Since there is no sales tax, the amount of spending does not affect federal taxes.

Historically, higher taxes bring in relatively more revenue, lower taxes bring in relatively less.

The "supply side" theory is that by cutting taxes, the economy grows not just faster but marginally faster than the decrease in tax revenues caused by the cut in the tax rate, thus marginally increasing overall revenues from what they would have been otherwise. But you are not claiming the economy is growing faster (much less marginally faster relative to the decrease in taxes) in the 00s than in the 90s are you?

The economy has not been growing marginally faster, and the tax revenues are hundreds of billions below what they would have been without the tax cuts, based upon economic growth.

I choose plan A, you choose plan B, mine helps everyone, yours puts the screws to everyone, especially the rich, those who you are really out to effect, and it would seem in a negative way.

How does adding $3 trillion more in debt help future taxpayers? The interest expense topped $400 billion for the first time ever. How does having a Government with a interest obligations of hundreds of billions help everyone? How does it help anyone?

I agree that cutting taxes and borrowing helps those who benefit from the tax cuts. But to the detriment of future tax payers.

I know it is an old fashioned notion, but IMO it is wrong to fund tax cuts by borrowing and to expect future tax payers to pay for the costs of *our* government.

But I know most of the pass the buck generation and its Repandercan leadership don't see it that way.

 

[Deegan]

If you don't understand how spending by Americans bring in more federal tax dollars, you are lost sir, completely, and desperately lost!:doh

American A, gets tax cut X, he then spends tax cut x on let's say.......potato chips. American B just happens to make potato chips, and because American A has more money to spend, is now making more potato chips then usual, oh wait, here come American C, he now needs to make even more potato chips to keep up with the demand. American B has made a fortune this year selling his potato chips, he didn't do so well a few years back, because some dumbass decided to raise taxes, thus cutting his business in half. Good news is, this year, American B has made more money, and that's more money to the government, everyone wins...........well, except Iriemon.:lol:

Now you see, you don't have to try and baffle Americans with B.S, you can just lay it out there very simply, where even a child can understand.

 

[Iriemon]

If you don't understand how spending by Americans bring in more federal tax dollars, you are lost sir, completely, and desperately lost!:doh

American A, gets tax cut X, he then spends tax cut x on let's say.......potato chips. American B just happens to make potato chips, and because American A has more money to spend, is now making more potato chips then usual, oh wait, here come American C, he now needs to make even more potato chips to keep up with the demand. American B has made a fortune this year selling his potato chips, he didn't do so well a few years back, because some dumbass decided to raise taxes, thus cutting his business in half. Good news is, this year, American B has made more money, and that's more money to the government, everyone wins...........well, except Iriemon.:lol:

Now you see, you don't have to try and baffle Americans with B.S, you can just lay it out there very simply, where even a child can understand.

OK, let's lay it out very simply, where even a child can understand. Let's say taxes were 25% and cut to 20%.

American A makes 50k, paid taxes of 12,500k before the tax cuts, and after his tax cut pays $10,000 and keeps $2500.

The Government is down $2500 in revenue.

American A takes his $2500 and buys potato chips from American B. American B sells another $2500 worth of potato chips, we'll say it is all profit for simplicity's sake, and pays the Govt an extra $500 in taxes.

Now Govt revenues are down $2000 bucks.

I think even a child could understand that.

 

[Deegan]

I am completely, desparately lost. Maybe you can explain it for us lost souls.

American A, gets tax cut X, he then spends tax cut x on let's say.......potato chips. American B just happens to make potato chips, and because American A has more money to spend, is now making more potato chips then usual, oh wait, here come American C, he now needs to make even more potato chips to keep up with the demand. American B has made a fortune this year selling his potato chips, he didn't do so well a few years back, because some dumbass decided to raise taxes, thus cutting his business in half. Good news is, this year, American B has made more money, and that's more money to the government, everyone wins...........well, except Iriemon.:lol:

Now you see, you don't have to try and baffle Americans with B.S, you can just lay it out there very simply, where even a child can understand.

American A makes 50k, paid taxes of 10k before the tax cuts, and after his tax cut pays $9500 and keeps $500.

The Government is down $500 in revenue.

American A takes his $500 and buys potato chips from American B. American B sells another $500 worth of potato chips, we'll say it is all profit, and pays the Govt an extra $100 in taxes.

Now the Govt is down $400 bucks.

Sorry. Still lost.[/QUOTE]

Because you want to remain lost........last year American A only made 20 grand a year, and was eligible for welfare, now not only is he making more every year, he just hired a new employee. We now saved not only the expense of two people on welfare, we created a new job, and now instead of being handed money, this new employee will now pay in to the government.


But I'm sure you're still lost.:lol:

 

[Iriemon]

Because you want to remain lost........last year American A only made 20 grand a year, and was eligible for welfare, now not only is he making more every year, he just hired a new employee. We now saved not only the expense of two people on welfare, we created a new job, and now instead of being handed money, this new employee will now pay in to the government.


But I'm sure you're still lost.:lol:

LOL -- now you are changing your childish scenario? You might be able to make an argument about increasing employment, if employment had increased as a result of the tax cuts. Unemployment was lower during the Clinton administration when the nation had those crippling tax rates that balanced the budget.

And actually, if American made only $20,000, he received virtually no tax break because Bush did not cut SS taxes -- the taxes the working poor pay. So he didn't buy any more potato chips. And really, considering that things like health care and fuel have eaten more and more into his expenses, he can't afford to buy *any* potato chips this year. And people in his income group have no seen real increases in their wages, so American A is not paying more taxes or hiring people.

A child could probably understand that too.

Next example?

 

[ProudAmerican]

No matter how some may try and spin this, this is a very good start, and proves that tax cuts work, now let's keep that spending down, and we are off to a very good start indeed!

if spending was under controll, there would be absolutely NOTHING to complain about with this economy.

 

[Iriemon]

if spending was under controll, there would be absolutely NOTHING to complain about with this economy.

If pigs had wings ....

And actually, tens of millions of lower income Americans have not seen their real wages increase since 2000, despite soaring corporate profits and growing GDP -- they might have something to complain about.

 

[Deegan]

LOL -- now you are changing your childish scenario? You might be able to make an argument about increasing employment, if employment had increased as a result of the tax cuts. Unemployment was lower during the Clinton administration when the nation had those crippling tax rates that balanced the budget.

And actually, if American made only $20,000, he received virtually no tax break because Bush did not cut SS taxes -- the taxes the working poor pay. So he didn't buy any more potato chips. And really, considering that things like health care and fuel have eaten more and more into his expenses, he can't afford to buy *any* potato chips this year. And people in his income group have no seen real increases in their wages, so American A is not paying more taxes or hiring people.

A child could probably understand that too.

Next example?

Clinton didn't balance the budget, the good fortunes of Americans did, because the 90's were very profitable, get this straight first. Next, what he did do is cut spending on the military, which did help the budget, but we now know, has hurt our soldiers, because you never know when war will break out. Finally, I didn't change the scenario, the tax cuts did, and everyone I know is quite pleased to have them, and would like to see them made perm.

I am no economist, but I work with Americans everyday, and I know they are buying more due to the current tax relief. I also know they are helping their business grow, and that this helps America.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If pigs had wings ....

And actually, tens of millions of lower income Americans have not seen their real wages increase since 2000, despite soaring corporate profits and growing GDP -- they might have something to complain about.

you can try to make up all the negativity you want irie. the economy is doing very well.

thats why we havent heard much about the DOW in the last week or so. its why we dont hear about how gas prices have dropped.

the left wing media is only interested in news that will help them in Nov, and in 08.

right now, the economy IS NOT one of those news stories.

 

[faithful_servant]

OK, let's lay it out very simply, where even a child can understand. Let's say taxes were 25% and cut to 20%.

American A makes 50k, paid taxes of 12,500k before the tax cuts, and after his tax cut pays $10,000 and keeps $2500.

The Government is down $2500 in revenue.

American A takes his $2500 and buys potato chips from American B. American B sells another $2500 worth of potato chips, we'll say it is all profit for simplicity's sake, and pays the Govt an extra $500 in taxes.

Now Govt revenues are down $2000 bucks.

I think even a child could understand that.

You're just throwing out bogus numbers to support a flawed assertion that you simply can't admit is wrong. Read about Nobel Prize winner Edward Prescott's analysis that supports the concept that the only problem with the last tax cuts was that they weren't big enough. Maybe you think that you're far smarter than a man who received a Nobel Prize for his ground-breaking work in ecomonics....