I would be interested in seeing this same series, but using only years that are 5 years after a recession. I may put that together and post it on my blog later this week if you don't.
hank paulson. i actually had lunch with the guy when i was working for the other co-chairman at the time (bob hurst) for a september 11th related charity organization. these guys are deep in the pockets of the federal governments, more so than the state/local. they all went to the same schools, married into the same families, go to the same charity events. it's pretty closed loop. i've seen it with my own eyes. paulson is the epitomy of big business. heck he runs goldman sachs the most succesful and largest investment bank in the world. 90% of the deals that go on are never discussed in public or put out for bid. i've seen a # of federal govt officials parade through the sept 11th offices where i worked for mr. hurst. business and politics are 2 sides of the same coin.
When the administration says they will "cut the deficit" do they mean in absolute numbers, or do they change this to mean "reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP."
One more question--have any stats on tax receipts from 2000 thru 2005?
I agree that it is mostly likely related to Bush policy changes - that is why I think a graph showing it would be better... though the deficit in 1986 was probably just as bad or worse.
Rob, the administration is playing games. In 2004 they projected the unified budget deficit to be $521 Billion - but it came in at $412 Billion. When they talk about cutting the "deficit in half", they mean reducing the Unified Budget deficit to $260 Billion (half of $521 Billion).
If they had projected the unified deficit at $800 Billion, they would have already cut it in half! Using a projection for comparisons is obviously nonsense.
On a day to day (and year to year) basis, the Administration is responsible for the General Fund deficit, not the Unified Budget deficit. The General Fund deficit was $596 Billion in 2004, and is expected to be around $600+ Billion again this year. So they have made some progress as a % of GDP, but no progress towards cutting the "deficit in half".
The reason the Unified Budget deficit is improving somewhat is because the annual Social Security surplus is growing. The SS surplus will probably peak in '09 and the Unified Budget deficit will then start to worsen.
It all intended to be misleading (at best).
Best Regards.
Heck, Rob, I don't care. Either one would be an improvement. But since IMHO we're headed to a recession starting in late 06 or 07, I think our debt-choked edonomy will have GDP falling soon.
CR --isn't counting reduction in expenditures compared to projection one of the things that Republicans were complaining about under Clinton. ISTR GWB complaining that those weren't really CUTS, but I may be attributing to him what other commentators were saying.
The most deceptive thing here (somewhat subtly so) is the notion that the increases in deficit spending over the past three years are running only about 5% of GDP.
Technically, this may be true, but only due to the fact that GDP has been strongly influenced by Mortgage Equity Withdrawals (MEW) (see 'Chart of the Week' on Calculated Risk, 9 Dec 05).
MEWs were 'tapped' by lowering interest rates to historic lows. Without this manipulation of GDP, it is clear that the National Debt would be a considerably larger percentage of GDP.
well said joel. MEW due to rock bottom interest rates in some guesstimates has added a good 1% to GDP in the last 2 years. even if housing flattens you can expect GDP to suffer. my own 'call' is a 4th quarter GDP annualized to slightly above 2%. we shall see.
Was that the debt held by the public as opposed to your usual posting of total Federal debt? Like you, I'm for reporting the general fund deficit.
I would be interested in seeing this same series, but using only years that are 5 years after a recession. I may put that together and post it on my blog later this week if you don't.
pgl, that is total debt increase over the first 8 months - $424 Billion - well on the way to over $600 Billion for fiscal 2006.
Best Wishes.
Steve Fontain, the previous recession ended in March '91. The increase in the debt for fiscal '91 was $432 Billion.
Five years later (fiscal '96) the increase in the debt was down to $251 Billion.
The current deficits have been caused almost entirely by policy choices of the Bush administration - not by the recession.
Best Regards.
"The current deficits have been caused almost entirely by policy choices of the Bush administration - not by the recession."
Just wait for the recession which is coming next year? How much will thge deficit be?
hank paulson. i actually had lunch with the guy when i was working for the other co-chairman at the time (bob hurst) for a september 11th related charity organization. these guys are deep in the pockets of the federal governments, more so than the state/local. they all went to the same schools, married into the same families, go to the same charity events. it's pretty closed loop. i've seen it with my own eyes. paulson is the epitomy of big business. heck he runs goldman sachs the most succesful and largest investment bank in the world. 90% of the deals that go on are never discussed in public or put out for bid. i've seen a # of federal govt officials parade through the sept 11th offices where i worked for mr. hurst. business and politics are 2 sides of the same coin.
ok rant over
sorry, the above post is mine.
Richard, Can you send me a list of available ladies in this group?
CR,
When the administration says they will "cut the deficit" do they mean in absolute numbers, or do they change this to mean "reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP."
One more question--have any stats on tax receipts from 2000 thru 2005?
I agree that it is mostly likely related to Bush policy changes - that is why I think a graph showing it would be better... though the deficit in 1986 was probably just as bad or worse.
As a percentage of GDP it aint bad.
i thought republicans were supposed to be conservative?
Rob, the administration is playing games. In 2004 they projected the unified budget deficit to be $521 Billion - but it came in at $412 Billion. When they talk about cutting the "deficit in half", they mean reducing the Unified Budget deficit to $260 Billion (half of $521 Billion).
If they had projected the unified deficit at $800 Billion, they would have already cut it in half! Using a projection for comparisons is obviously nonsense.
On a day to day (and year to year) basis, the Administration is responsible for the General Fund deficit, not the Unified Budget deficit. The General Fund deficit was $596 Billion in 2004, and is expected to be around $600+ Billion again this year. So they have made some progress as a % of GDP, but no progress towards cutting the "deficit in half".
The reason the Unified Budget deficit is improving somewhat is because the annual Social Security surplus is growing. The SS surplus will probably peak in '09 and the Unified Budget deficit will then start to worsen.
It all intended to be misleading (at best).
Best Regards.
"Here are some recent delusional comments:"
Those are lying comments. Big difference.
The comment by Bush could be honest ignorance.
There are some who would consider him as such.
Heck, Rob, I don't care. Either one would be an improvement. But since IMHO we're headed to a recession starting in late 06 or 07, I think our debt-choked edonomy will have GDP falling soon.
CR --isn't counting reduction in expenditures compared to projection one of the things that Republicans were complaining about under Clinton. ISTR GWB complaining that those weren't really CUTS, but I may be attributing to him what other commentators were saying.
The most deceptive thing here (somewhat subtly so) is the notion that the increases in deficit spending over the past three years are running only about 5% of GDP.
Technically, this may be true, but only due to the fact that GDP has been strongly influenced by Mortgage Equity Withdrawals (MEW) (see 'Chart of the Week' on Calculated Risk, 9 Dec 05).
MEWs were 'tapped' by lowering interest rates to historic lows. Without this manipulation of GDP, it is clear that the National Debt would be a considerably larger percentage of GDP.
well said joel. MEW due to rock bottom interest rates in some guesstimates has added a good 1% to GDP in the last 2 years. even if housing flattens you can expect GDP to suffer. my own 'call' is a 4th quarter GDP annualized to slightly above 2%. we shall see.