is shrinking, despite what some liberals would have you believe. As a portion of GDP, the deficit now is less than it was in 2004. The reason? Increasing tax revenues from a growing economy. (US News and World Report Feb 19, 2007.) Bush got his tax cuts, and tax revenues increased? Surely I must be wrong. Check for yourself---next time someone says that the deficit now is at cold war levels, tell them that thankfully the GDP is significantly larger than it was.
Funny how we never hear about that though in the mainstream media which is owned by the liberals, aside from one fair and balanced station (Fox News Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) All we hear about is the latest car bomb (since there is one every ****ing day, lol).
It's impossible for there to be any GOOD news about the USA on sciforums. Therefore, I conclude that there must be something wrong in your post or in the cited US News report ...somewhere, somehow, someone fucked up. No news about the USA can possibly be good ...ever. The membership of Sciforums simply does not permit it. Baron Max
From meandering through the forums, I would tend to agree with you. But the numbers are legit. The thing that is important is not how many billions of dollars we are over budget, but how much that is as a portion of the GDP, which tells how much wealth we are generating.
So after increasing spending like no tomorrow from 2000 to 2004, Bush has finally decreased the deficit to his own 2004 levels? Start this thread when Bush manages to decrease the deficit to 2000 levels and then we're talking.
The sheer tonnage of thousand-dollar bills still being thrown into the national fireplace is truly incomprehensible. This news article is meaningless.
As a percentage of GDP, even the record 2004 deficit was about the same as the deficits that France and Germany ran that year, and significantly less than Japan. Nowadays, America runs smaller proportional deficits than those countries. Also, France and Germany both have debts that are about the same size as Americas, as a percentage of GDP, and Japan, again, has a much higher ratio.
Do you have a link? Bush likes to a lot of tricky accounting to say the deficient 'shrank', when he actually just counts the money differenty. Pretty typical strategy, usually.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf Federal accounting is handled by the Congressional Budget Office which, as the name implies, is a branch of Congress. These figures do not come from the White House. The differences in budget figures you're thinking of pertain to projections, which depend on various assumptions. When it comes to past budget numbers, there's not much room to fudge. The amounts of money taken in and spent by the federal government last year are known, concrete amounts, and no amount of assumptions on future growth or expenditures can alter them.
So all the Bush Wars are paid for! We can afford to rebuild New Orleans now! And Iraq, like The Decider said! We are in the deepest debt in US history. Only Rotting Reagan comes up 2nd place. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0728-03.htm http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/economy/index.html
Sure, but the GDP is also the largest it has ever been, and we're collecting more tax revenues than we ever have, despite Bush's tax cuts. The point is that it is the ratio of what we owe to what we make, not the absolute value. The wars aren't paid for, we're just not in as bad a financial place as some would have us believe.
Typical conservative evasion of responsibility. Just pass the debt onto future generations. Can the 3rd World also make the "off the books" excuse to dodge debt? I might try that one with my bank.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ACTUALLY YES... any nation can do so... but the big nations... who run the game of international currency trading values... dont advise them to do so.... and if they do... the big boys get upset. idi amine.... in africa did so.. he kicked out all foreign corps... and instilled an investment program... it worked... pretty well. that country.. is now.. historically.. economically... better off.. or atleast that is what they say. the big boys of the world... wouldnt say that, HOWEVER... SO IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. -MT
THE THIRD WORLD.... has been fooled.. tricked... into loans... loans from the world bank... and imf... with interest.. and long term debt. loans... they never really needed. but.. obviously.. their leaders... dont realise how to use the power they have... and have let the world big boys... educate them. thats a big mistake. -MT
Well, it means that the debt rose faster than the population grew. Note that GDP/citizen also went up over the same period. It's true that the total debt to GDP ratio has risen, but now that the deficit as a percentage of GDP is below the growth rate of the GDP, the debt to GDP ratio will diminish. This isn't to say that the absolute amount of the debt won't continue to grow (faster than population, even), as that would require a budget surplus. Rather, it means that the debt is becoming a smaller fraction of our total income. Given the choice between a lower debt-to-gdp ratio and a lower total debt, I'd always opt for the former. A $500 debt with a $1000 income is preferable to a $200 debt with a $300 income. Moreover, the debt to GDP ratio has yet to approach levels thought to be problematic. Other advanced economies have run substantially higher debt ratios for decades without it destroying them. This map is enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map.PNG I don't think you'll notice much correlation between debt-to-gdp ratio and economic health: you can find low-debt shitholes and high-debt paradises, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note the different debt positions of Mexico vs. America and Canada.