Some of you are WRONG Options

[T00000]

Taken from yahoo news

White House to Project Record Deficit

41 minutes ago  Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House will project soon that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion, congressional aides said, a record figure certain to ignite partisan warfare over President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the economy.

 

The annual summertime analysis is expected out this Friday, said several congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday. That would be well after the frequently ignored legal deadline of July 15.


White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said the report will be issued when it is ready, and offered no date. Friday will be a day after the Democratic National Convention ends — a release date that would prevent presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., and others at the gathering from citing its figures to criticize Bush.


Some aides said they believed the projected shortfall would be close to $450 billion, though one said it would be about $420 billion.


Either way, the White House was ready to emphasize that the figure is well below the $521 billion it projected for this year last February, and tie it to improvements in the economy.


"It is hard to disregard the strong progress made on the economy and our fiscal situation," Kolton said Tuesday.


Democrats have said Bush purposely overestimated this year's budget gap so he could take credit for improvement when the real figures came in.


"The new estimate ... will set a new record of fiscal mismanagement and deficit spending," said Kerry economic adviser Gene Sperling.


The federal budget year runs through Sept. 30 and has only two months to go.


Last year's deficit was $375 billion, the worst ever in dollar terms. The White House has said the numbers are manageable because they only equal about 4 percent the size of the U.S. economy — well below the 6 percent ratio reached under President Reagan.


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) projected in January that this year's shortfall would be $477 billion. In May, citing higher than expected revenue collections, it said it believed the red ink would be smaller but offered no figure.


Two weeks ago, the Treasury Department (news - web sites) said the deficit for the first nine months of this budget year was $327 billion. That was more than 20 percent larger than the $270 billion shortfall for the same period last year.

You know, whoever told me that George Bush has improved the economy is WRONG. That's sad too, he'll be ending his term this november in a record deficit. It's a damn good thing he's going to lose.

[ComradeRed]

now i don't know if you've taken economics at your school, but if you haven't, an economy that's going through an expansion (in other words, it's doing pretty good) has a GDP of 3-5%.  3.9% and 4.1% fall right into that category.

I'm assuming you mean GDP Growth. Secondly, just because an economy is going through a period of expansion doesn't necessarily mean it is healthy. A healthy economy is one that is at equilibrium. Expansion and recession alternates.

GDP is basically a measure of how well our economy's doing.  the amount that the government spends is NOT a measure of how well our economy's doing (although it may play a part in it).

GDP Growth is a measure of productivity, which correleates to economic strength, but it not the only indicator.

and i don't get it. although Bush plays a part in the economy, there are lots of other factors.  Alan Greenspan pretty much controls the economy because he has control of the monetary policy.  he can raise/lower interest rates, and take out and bring in more money if he wants to.  also, consumers (me and you) need to buy more to stimulate the economy.  otherwise, no one will spend, so industries won't work, so people get fired because industries don't need them, and then people don't have money since they got fired, so they don't buy stuff (its a cycle).

one reason Bush is spending a lot is because he's trying to stimulate the economy.  by spending money, he gets industries to work (and so their employees work, which means people get money, and once they get money, they can spend that money, and so the people making those products get paid, etc.)

like i've said numerous times before, don't blame Bush for everything that appears to be going wrong (even though things might actually be doing ok)

You can't spend on a deficit. It doesn't work. If you run a business, just because you are running out of money, that means you should spend less not more. It's the same deal with the economy. Deficit spending under Carter in the 70s resulted in a horrible recession, even as Carter cut taxes (though not enough to make up for the increased spending).

Monetary policy should be designed to minimize inflation.