White House: Record Deficit Still Good News

The federal deficit soared to $374.2 billion in 2003, the White House said Monday, a record total that more than doubled last year's red ink and looked like a prelude to even gloomier numbers.

Because the shortfall marked an improvement from a $455 billion projection the White House made in July, Bush administration officials cited it as evidence that their attempts to fortify the weak economy were working.

"Today's budget numbers reinforce the indications we have seen for some months now, that the economy is well on the path to recovery," Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

White House budget director Joshua Bolten said much of the same but also conceded that worse fiscal numbers were on the horizon, estimating the gap for the new year "will likely exceed $500 billion even with the strengthening economy." Bolten said spending restraint and policies aimed at bolstering the economy can wrench the budget onto a course to cut deficits in half by 2009.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/21fedbud.html

public is?

They will accept these numbers as part of doing business without thinking about how they got the way they did and what they mean for individuals in the near and far term future. Personally, I'm not very hopeful that things will change unless economics become drastically worse. That being you either think or starve.

My favorite is when they tout "new unemployment claims dropped"... as though people are finding work. It merely means that NEW claims dropped. Those that were unemployed last week and the week before are STILL unemployed. Their benefits ran out... or maybe they just gave up looking.

-- Allen

Shoot myself in the ass and make up a story involving leather and mink-lined handcuffs?

That is far more believable than any of the economic indicators I've seen so far and much more believable than "Oxy" Rush, "Let 'Em Die" Laura or "fair and balanced" Faux.

There just has to be a pony at the bottom of all that horse shit somewhere ~

:shrug:

"Bolten said spending restraint and policies aimed at bolstering the economy can wrench the budget onto a course to cut deficits in half by 2009"

Sad part is, they will launch a long propaganda campaign, and in the end a majority of old poor people would probably be fooled into going along with it and simply die of starvation, just like in the "good old days".

The Iraq war was just a test case, just a toe in the water to see how easy it is to fool and confuse the public.

This headline just blows my mind!

:mad:

This calculation is in terms of spending versus the approved budget. Discretionary spending, all $167 Billion for Iraq, is not included in this figure.

Our local morning news whench* read the "good" news and said that in terms of a percentage of the GDP this is a better performance than Poppa or Clinton.............that was when there was a debt under Clinton I guess.

*She is a very wealthy wife who does do charity work in the community but whenever there is bad news to read the male co-host reads it. She only reads the good news and never anything on Iraq. About a year ago at this time she read the story of the anti-war protests in the Richmodn area and then said "but if you want to support the troops there will be a pro-war rally....". I sent her a blistering e-mail pointing out that not only are wars not generally good for the troops, that the anti-war movement is not AGAINST the troops, and that the pro-war rally was sponsored by a radical right wing website (Freep). She did respond blaming it on the writers.

It certainly isn't this one. Theirs must be called Fantasyplanet.

Orwell called it newspeak.

as excellent news. Why should a little $374.2 billion bother them.

and when we "only" get a $500 billion deficit, they will say we did much better than expected. With Dubya and this Administration, it is all about expectations.

Our losses are not as bad as we (or the Street) predicted so actually we did well.

(mumble) of course this means all of our models and forecasting systems are terribly flawed (end mumble)

So keep on trusting us!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, just think about it for a moment! Consider all the benefits of being dead! You don't have to pay taxes anymore! And you no longer have to listen to the unmitigated bullshit and propoganda streaming from the WH! And Heaven's a real nifty place and at least hell is warm! Woohooo! Sign me up!

You need to humor that silver spoon retarded son GW Bush.

Oops my apologies. I didn't mean to insult the mentally retarded.

Every single function of government seems to have been taken over by Karl Rove.

"We need to find out what kind of shenanigans caused the estimate to be so off, whether OMB deliberately estimated high numbers so everybody could jump for joy this week," Hollings wrote in a letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-Okla.), requesting hearings on the inaccuracy of the administration's July projection.

Aw, C’mon! How do they explain their own words?

“About one-third of the improvement since the July estimate was because actual revenue collections (most of us just call them TAXES!) totaled $26 billion more in 2003 than the White House projected, for a total of $1.782 trillion.

"Part of that improvement was because in July, the White House assumed a $15 billion drop in TAX collections because of "revenue uncertainty" -- a drop that never occurred.

"Most of the rest was due to better-than-expected collections (i.e., TAXES) of individual and corporate income TAXES -- improvements that could mean a stronger economy is raising individuals' and companies' incomes, which translates to higher TAX liability.

"Spending for 2003 ended up at $2.157 trillion, which was $55 billion lower than the White House's July projection. Though defense spending rose over 2002, its increase was $20 billion less than the White House estimated in July.

"Much of this was because the government was spending Iraq aid more slowly than anticipated, Monday's report said. (HUH? HUH? They just asked for $87 Billion more, and haven't gotten around to spending what they have? Can anyone explain this?)

"Though that slower spending made 2003 look better, many of the expenditures will actually occur in 2004, making that year's shortfall worse".

In other words, we are better off because the government collected those damned TAXES - even from corporations! How can you brag about this being good news when it is the opposite of the essential part of your ideology on government?