Federal Deficit Down 56% Year-to-Date


You won't see the headline in your newspaper. Nor will you see the story on network news, even though it is the likely the biggest economic news of the week.

Through the first seven months of the fiscal year the federal budget deficit is 56%, or about $100 billion, below the deficit of just one year ago, which itself was the lowest in five years.

Federal receipts were up 11%, while spending rose 3%.

It must be a coincidence that revenues increased after the "Bush tax cuts."

gix, this is good news, can you provide a link for this?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

thanks, it was a great read and very good news. See what the new congress has done?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

HAha....thats a good one rob....... i think the better question is what has the new congress not done....

anyway have a good weekend buddy

Not so fast my little Conservative Propagandist Political HACK! You forgot to mention how much the Iraq War and Occupation is tied to the DEFICT! to the estimated cost of over a 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

You forgot to mention how much the Iraq War and Occupation is tied to the DEFICT! to the estimated cost of over a 2.0 TRILLION DOLLARS and counting!

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

while you are at it can you please tell us what the liabilty's of Social Security, wellfare, medicare are.......


and please post links to back up your 1.5 trillion estimates... i could of swore you where hocking that the war cost us 500 billion a few months ago...
thank you

Here ya go Gixy, don't count all your eggs before they hatch! That 56% decline is just some GOP HACK cooking the books! OOps somehow those hacks forgot to include the cost of the Iraq War to the Deficit!!!!

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...op_2_trillion/

WASHINGTON -- The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion after factoring in long-term healthcare for wounded US veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and accounting for other unforeseen bills and economic losses, according to a new analysis to be presented today in Boston.

The estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes far exceeds projections made by the Bush administration.

The figure is more than four times what the war was expected to cost through 2006 -- around $500 billion, according to congressional budget data.

The new study is billed as a detailed analysis not only of the potential costs of sustaining the operation in Iraq for at least several more years, but also the expenses likely to be incurred by taxpayers long after US troops withdraw.

The government will have costly obligations to a new class of veterans, be forced to make new investments in stressed military ranks thinned by multiple tours of duty, and withstand the enduring impact of the war on the nation's overall financial outlook.

For example, the study attributes a portion of the increase in oil prices -- $5 per barrel -- to instability in the Middle East caused by the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and sparked a bloody insurgency.

It estimates that the shock to the oil industry has already added at least $25 billion to the price tag of the conflict.

The analysis also attempts to account for the war's impact on the ballooning federal deficit, its ripple effects on overall economic growth and investment, and losses in productivity.

''There are quite a few things that are not being captured in the budgetary numbers" presented by the government, said Stiglitz, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001. ''When you add up all of those numbers, it increases substantially. I think $2 trillion is conservative."

The findings will be presented at the Sheraton Boston Hotel today at a conference of economists and social scientists sponsored by the Allied Social Sciences Association, the American Economic Association, and the Economists for Peace and Security.

The authors said their predictions were largely based on previous data -- including from past conflicts -- that were compiled by government agencies, including the Pentagon, The Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Congressional Budget Office.

For the purposes of their study, Stiglitz and Bilmes assumed the US mission in Iraq would last until 2010, but with a steadily declining number of US troops each year.

The White House, which predicted in 2002 that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, declined to comment on the new study. The Office of Management and Budget ''does not comment on this type of speculation," said spokesman Rich Walker.

Predicting overall costs when no one knows how long the war will last, or how many US troops will remain deployed and for how long, is an imprecise exercise.

''Many of the costs of the war in Iraq are ones we haven't even begun to pay yet," said US Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Lowell and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

''If the war in Iraq were to end today, we would still face hundreds of billions of dollars in costs far into the future," he said.

Lastly GIX, wait till Bush leaves office!! By July 2009, America will get the true report card on that state of our fiscal health. Bush has SCREWED UP this economy.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Gee Rastaman, all this economic fear mongering is based on what again?

An "estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes"

Well, I'm certainly going to lose sleep over that one.

By the way Gix... thanks for the good news. Apparently the Treasury Department forgot to share that news with the "hacks" over at Columbia University and Harvard.

__________________