Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Bush Brags About $296 Billion Deficit and Kool-aid Drunken Repugs Cheer. Can the Bar for this President Be Any Lower?

With the new budget deficit numbers out, a reasonable expectation would be that President Bush would not only be sequestered at the Crawford ranch clearing brush, he'd be hiding in it too. Yet unlike any other president in history, this one believes a $296 billion deficit is actually something to brag about. It only goes to show that the Busheviks are so desperate for anything even remotely positive to tout that they'd use the deficit as something to be proud of. The performance bar is set so low for Bush that his operatives can now astonishingly point to a colossal failure and paint it as a success. In essence today, the 'good' news from Bush was that the news was not as horrifying as it could have been; that the previously projected $423 billion deficit for this year would be $127 billion smaller. Whoopee. Give the man a cookie. Is it too much to ask of this administration that they be measured against the Clinton days of record surpluses? Apparently so.

Before a White House gathering of curiously excited Republicans Tuesday, Bush cited his tax policies as being the great fix for the economy: "The increase in tax revenue is much bigger that we had projected, and it's helping us cut the budget deficit...Our policies are working." What Bush forgot to remind everyone was that, while indeed last year's $318 billion deficit has shrunk somewhat, the $296 billion '06 deficit represents an almost $1-trillion swing from the $600 billion '06 surplus his administration projected in 2001. But only to the Busheviks can policies that turn a projected $600 billion surplus into a roughly $300 billion deficit be viewed as "working." That the revised dreadful projection of $423 billion for '06 was reduced to a less dreadful $296 billion is certainly nothing to cheer.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) remarked, a deficit "smaller than $300 billion, is that anything to brag about? I think not."

Further bursting the Bushevik bubble is that the deficit is projected to increase next year to $339 billion, a result of declining tax revenue. Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the Treasury Department projects just 2.7% revenenue growth for '07.

The contrast to the Clinton years are startling. Since Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget has gone from four years of surpluses under Clinton--the longest run of black ink since before the 1920's--to record deficits. And Tuesday's rah-rah session by Bush did not address the concerns economists have about the future. They cite record spending, the Iraq war, Social Security obligations, the Medicare prescription drug program and a reduction in the estate tax as negatively impacting the economy in the coming years.

The Center on Budget Policy noted that while a reduction in the deficit is always welcome, the 2006 reduction isn't going to change the long-term fiscal outlook.

And while VP Dick Cheney might think "deficits don't matter," The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal policy watchdog, notes that the interest on U.S. debt is the fastest growing category of government spending.


Anonymous said...

Cheney, if deficits don't matter then why did you cast the deciding vote to cut $12 billion in socia l programs you goddam prick?! These cuts also contributing to the "good news". Republican ass wipes, they are.

Zeeland said...

At forty-nine years old I'm too young to remember what it felt like to be a part of the protest movement that took place in the 60's. How much more of this are we going to take before we are emboldened with the sense of responsibility afforded us by The Constitution to save it and ourselves? Anger and outrage are insuffiecient to explain my feelings, but something approaching self-loathing as well for not saying to hell with my career, my posessions, my reputation for rational behaviour, just get out there and hope others will march in lockstep.

On April 24th Bush was refused admittance unto Standford University campus by the student body. He was there to meet with members of the Hoover Institute, reported only by the Stanford Daily. 1000 students and their families held him at bay. Way to go Stanford!!

Anonymous said...

Let's draft Zeeland for President. His comments above are the most encouraging words I've heard since Bush has been in office.

Turk Meister said...

GWB always cites as signs of an improving economy that "productivity is up." What he fails to mention is that this is a benefit to businesses but to workers, not so much. It means more work for less pay!

Anonymous said...

All our politicians are stealing from us. We need to abolish the IRS and embrace the FairTax


any 'tax reform' other than the fairtax is an absolute lie.

Anonymous said...

If by "fair tax" you mean the same percentage from every income you haven't paid ten percent of your income for a service that has a percentage sliding scale. Ten percent is a huge portion of a poor man's income and almost unnoticable in a rich man's.

Anonymous said...

Just herard on tv where bush has to make a cut on medicare and SS for 2007 to keep his plan of Government goingHow much more can he cut the old people,Mostpeople on SS only get 10 to 15 thousand and his medicare stinks as it is.
as for instance a person on the verge of cancer of the larnex a couple years ago,was told by his Doctor hed half to take previous the rest of his life Now hes been cut off because previous is to high.Me thinking why dont they fight it out with the pill co.instead of paying a high school kid 40 to 50 thousand a yr to figure its to high priced.
The only fix I see to help the budget is to put the whole Government on SS With their 10 or 12 thousand they might tighten up a bit and learn what a dollar is and not vote so fast for these billion $ bills.
10 or 12 thousand would be an over payment for all in congressmen as any retired person could do better.It would pump up the economy faster than any of Bushes tax cuts,Hell if they are all paying in to ss like i did we could get rid of the IRS.all to gether.with out any flat tax,
Get rid of both political parties as they are a corrupt groop of crooks living off people that wants to buy their way. WEd have a better class of people running this country.
Another thing do away with the sec of state job altogether,you cant run around with a pack of lyes and force other leaders to listen to you,Id also say get rid of airforse #1,make all business handled in Washington DC.and no gifts to foreign countries as this just causes wars.which the people should vote on to go to war. If this wouldnt help or couldnt be done then the only thing leftis a darn good tax revote or do it Zeelands way right now.

Anonymous said...

"If by 'fair tax' you mean..."

Instead of guessing what the FairTax is (and being wrong), just go to the website:


and try reading. The fairtax is a consumption tax. The more resources you use, the more you pay. The more damage you do to the environment, the more you pay. The government will send everybody a monthly check to cover essentials like food, based on the size of their family.

The fairtax ignores income and abolishes the IRS. No more filling out tax forms every year. Taxes are paid by the service and goods providers - not by the people. This means nobody gets to cheat the tax system, whether they are illegal aliens/workers, prosititutes, or even the big 'evil' rich people who know how to leverage the tax loop holes to keep more of their money.

The Fairtax would also get rid of the unnecessary laws that encourage companies to base their headquarters in tax havens, like the carribean. Companies would be moving to the US and boosting our economy.

Support the fairtax:


Anonymous said...

Also, no more taxes coming out of your paychecks. You keep ALL the money you earn.


Anonymous said...

"The government will send everybody a monthly check to cover essentials like food based on the size of their family." This sounds like communism to me and although communism has some good points, who wants to depend on the government for essentials? We cannot even get essential healthcare now. What if there's another Bush-like administration which tries to cut this arrangement or abolish it like Bush tried to abolish social security because the government "can't afford it." The more damage you do to the environment the more you pay. Who is the "you"? The companies destroying the enviornment now are getting away with killing us with toxins as well as the environment. Why would things be different then? You think the government would police them more effectively because of a "fair tax"? THere would still be corruption and paybacks. You think the service and goods people wouldn't cheat????? The "service and goods people" are "people" who are now paying taxes or not, and are cheating, or not. And the poor would still be punished for being poor because they could buy even less than now because of the consumer tax. Why would it not be wise to fix the tax system we have and change the laws that allow companies to tax havens.

Anonymous said...

You obviously did ZERO reading about the FairTax. All of your concerns are discussed on the website.


The only way to 'fix the tax system' is to move towards a consumption tax. Anything else is like rearranging the chairs on the titanic, as it sinks.

BTW, with the FairTax, you don't have to 'rely' on the government for essentials. You will get compensated for the amount of essentials that your family-size requires.

You get your entire paycheck, no taxes are taken out. People who work under the table would have no change to their paychecks since they don't pay taxes anyway. Nobody would have to fill out IRS forms because the individuals are not taxed on their income.

Your paychecks would be larger, the cost of products would initially go up as well, but the free market would bring those prices down.

Politicians would no longer be able to use the tax system for control of the masses, social engineering, or vote buying.

Companies who chose to place their headquarters overseas for tax reasons would be rushing to invest in the American economy built by the fair tax. We would be where people want to base companies instead of offshoring.

Damage to the environment is measured by an individual's consumption of resources, so all the hollywood elites that have 12,000 sq ft houses and fly private jets would pay more than a multi-millionair who lives like (s)he is at the poverty level.

Do some reading, it's worth it.


If you don't want to read about the fair tax (taxation can be a boring topic), what the video.


Anonymous said...

I went to the fairtax.org and I'm amazed that anyone can think the proposal is a good idea. It is not sensible and it is not fair; and, the opporunity for cheating is enormous. The loop holes and chances for the rich to cheat while they are supposedly "helping society" are monumental and the chance for merchants to sell merchandise for less without collecting the taxes is an open invitation for cheating. As it is I've had employers deduct my social security and never send it to the fund or report it. Think what oppotunities the countless "sellers" would have to profit from this system. We can start catching the drug dealers, pimps etc. so that those who resent it that criminals are not paying taxes; and thus avoid creating a whole new class of criminals. And $23 paid in tax on every hundred is about one fourth of one's income if there isn't enough money except for living expenses. That's 25% tax for the less fortunate. I know thre's an "essential needs" advantage but it sounds messy and unreliable too. That would depend on the government doling out essentials.