The budget was worrisome in the 70s and 80s, was it not?
Deficit Growth was worrisome. It was brought under control, and hopefully, lessons have been learned. We should watch carefully to assure that lessons have been learned.
timber
Two years ago deficit growth 0 (had surpluses) , last year deficit growth $100 plus billion, this year deficit growth $300+ billion - not including war ot tax decrease -
Yeap, I'd say there is a clear and evident of deficit growth, it is worrisome and it is NOT good fiscal policy!
If NOT the budget, then perhaps there'll be something else worrisome!
BillW, re Deficit Growth, The Administration's proposals indicate a near-to-mid-term continuing deficit of below 3%, which is a very sustainable level. Should Republican Economic Stimulus programs bear out, a more robust economy will generate proportionately greater Federal Revenue, thus blunting or eliminating deficit spending. Should the Republicans fail to hold to the 3% level, or should economic recovery not proceed apace, there is considerable cause for worry. There is cause for concern and careful monitoring. There is no cause for immediate alarm, and in fact the current deficit is bouying the US Economy.
I cannot lay blame on The Current Administration for current economic woes. Rather, I feel the 8 years of previous administration undid the gains made by the 12 years of administrations preceeding it. I have considerable issue with what I feel to have been irresponsible economic policy as prosecuted by The Clinton Camp, and attribute to it the current state of affairs.
timber
Good spin timber, sure you don't get a direct pay check to forward the creed?
Less than two years after Bush projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses for the next decade, on Monday he estimated $1.08 trillion in cumulative deficits for the coming five years alone.
Didn't you know, dys, that Bush is distantly related to Criswell?
yeah ok, i just thought i was confused again. Maybe i was thinking something about "Read my lips"
just about half of the budget is earmarked for defense spending. And how many cuts have we had in our schools systems nation wide?
and how much has gone into the pockets of the wealthy!
And, with a system as complex and far-ranging as the U.S. budget - can the camps ever be reconciled?
I'm not sure the present administration cares littlek!
I agree, I'm just talking about use members of a2k. There's a lot of debate on the subject going on around here.
I think one day in the near future (year+ a few months), you will be hard pressed to find anyone who "voted" for Bush. That will show the camps had been reconciled!
I disagree. No matter what happens in politics (barring a few catastrophes), there is always an arguement for either side and against the other.
dyslexia wrote:Less than two years after Bush projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses for the next decade, on Monday he estimated $1.08 trillion in cumulative deficits for the coming five years alone.
Which works out to a bit less than 2% overall, the way I see it. If that is what happens, fine. If Deficit Growth becomes evident, then action would be warranted. I am disinclined to anticipate Deficit Growth, though I could be wrong. It's the way I call it, though.
timber.
littlek wrote:there is always an arguement for either side and against the other.
That's pretty much the whole point, the way I see it.
timber
Wrong, BillW. I still admit having voted for Nixon. Twice. I just hate being fooled, too.
Timber - and they can find professional opinions to support their views either way. What's the point of arguing the details here on a2k when there won't ever be any resolve?
