He's managed to cut the deficit in 1/2..WTF

how can this be? With the billions of dollars going to fund the fiasco in Iraq??? Is it bullshit?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/bush.transcript/index.html
"First, I want to briefly mention that today we've released the actual budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended on September the 30th. These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal budget deficit in half, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule.

clueless people will believe it, and no one called him on it. Great journalists all.:eyes:

Hence, it doesn't show up in the deficits.

Ever wondered how to make half a trillion dollars disappear? Betcha didn't know it was so easy, did you?

And doesn't that mean that the deficit would be higher?

And that's just the deficit, of course, not the debt, which is far, far bigger.

is that true? I thought the deficit was intimately tied with the money being spent on the war.
As for $ disappearing, there's a few contractors out there that have made it a fine art. Custer Battles immediately comes to mind.

Supplemental spending bills, though written by Congress, do not appear on the federal budget.

What IS driving up the deficit besides generally poor management? I had no clue war costs weren't even counted in there.
Thanks for edumicatin' me, hatrack!

If you don't collect revenue but spend money like Bill "Morality Czar" Bennet in Vegas, you end up with a deficit. Simple math.

But what do the Bushies care? THEY make more money this way!

DUH! here. Makes perfect sense.

and that any deficit he's cutting in half is a defecit that he, personally, is responsible for.

though I think that when he says "cut in half", the truth is like this: In september, he wanted a deficit of $700 billion, but has now decided to offer a deficit of only $350 billion. OR that the last few years have seen an average 20% increase in the deficit spending, and this year he managed to hold it to 10%, meaning that even though the increase was cut in half (percentage-wise), it's still actually bigger deficit than last year's.

Plus, it also belies the fact that a lot of shit we're spending money on isn't coming from the budget (like the war), so that all should be added into the deficit pot, since it's all borrowed, but it doesn't show in the deficit pot.

And not to mention the fact that even cut in half, IT'S STILL A FUCKING DEFICIT YOU FUCKING MORAN CRIMINAL!! YOU'RE STILL LETTING CHINA BUY US UP!!!!!!

a lie. It's terrible to feel such contempt for a person, any person, but especially this one.

He's The Decider and stupid little things like facts are an annoyance.

Even with the sickening cuts made across the board, we can't even pay for the tax cuts, let alone the war.

He probably said he's managed to cut the annual increase rate of the deficit in half. Which is itself bull because of flakey accounting. If he really said he cut the deficit itself, someone needs to tell the rest of the world because they keep making graphs like this:

http://www.forecasts.org/economic-indicator/federal-debt.htm

of course it's a lie! There's no logical way. It's only so he can justify his next round of tax-cuts to the rich.

TC

his believers hear it come from his mouth and take it to be gospel.

I would like to see what a REAL financial analyst has to say about how our economy is doing so well...and I did notice that the article acknowledged that while the economy may look good today, that ain't gonna last.

Also I wondered "Where's all this money coming from, that the deficit is going down, hmmm? Couldn't be from things like the social programs you've axed, could it?"
:sarcasm:

There was no deficit when he took office. Even if this is accurate (and i have my doubts given the off budget war expenses), it's merely minor repair work.
The Professor

so they could trot out this "halving the deficit" crapola??? There's no redemption when you borrow on our future to give rich people tax cuts.