The federal deficit shrinks!
 

At least, when looked at with WAAP standards

Fuzzy Bush math
You're about to hear that the budget deficit is falling. Don't believe it, warns Fortune's Allan Sloan. The deficit is much, much bigger than you think.

FORTUNE Magazine
By Allan Sloan, Fortune senior editor-at-large
September 4 2007: 8:10 AM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- There will be lots of celebrating in Washington next month when the Treasury announces that the federal budget deficit for fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30, will have dropped to a mere $158 billion, give or take a few bucks.

That will be $90 billion below the reported 2006 deficit, and will be toasted by the White House and Treasury as a great accomplishment.
bush.03.jpg
Bush: Are the numbers going his way? The happy news that the budget deficit has fallen by $90 billion may produce unhappy long-term political results.

The numbers
Here's how I come up with my budget numbers, based on the Congressional Budget Office's August 2007 update, which you can find at cbo.gov.
Summary Table 1 of the introduction shows a projected total deficit of $158 billion for 2007, compared with $248 billion for 2006.
Table 1-1, on page 2 of the report, shows a $186 billion surplus for Social Security. Table 1-7, p. 16, shows $108 billion of interest paid to the SS trust fund; hence, the SS cash surplus is $78 billion (186 minus 108). Also in Table 1-7, Treasury debt held by "other government accounts" is projected to be $1.725 trillion, up $97 billion from $1.628 in 2006.
There's another $7 billion of "real" deficit that I can't account for, because these numbers total $441 billion and Table 1-7 shows an increase in "gross federal debt" of $448 billion for 2007. Let's just call it a rounding error.

But I have a nasty little secret for you, folks. If you use realistic numbers rather than what I call WAAP -- Washington Accepted Accounting Principles -- the real federal deficit for the current fiscal year is more than 2 1/2 times the stated deficit.

Full article:

http://tinyurl.com/2tdqlj

Funny, you guys are still saying that Clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus, I guess your nasty little secret is only true when Republicans are in office:rolleyes:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1188942233.jpg

Nope, the Social Security surplusses have been plundered since the mid-70s, no matter who is in power.

The deficit is only stated on a year-to-year basis, no matter who is in power, but the gamesmanship has been on the rise continuously.

Your buddy has increased the Federal debt more than all prior presidents combined. Meaning you have IOUs instead of taxes -- you're financing your taxes with no repayment plan. Good idea.

Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore .

I was never planning on going to heaven, Mother has told me so.

I want to go to were all the naughty girls go:D

You are correct Tech, on both parts.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1188944322.jpg

No kidding. When this current nightmare is over, we're going to be unravelling stories and secrets and games and tactics that will end any respect that any thinking person might still have for this "administration." The conclusion that our budget deficit is falling.....is beyond dishonest. Beyond insulting. Indeed, just like "Benedict Arnold" means the same as "traitor," "Geee Dubya" should become a term that connotes wholesale mismanagement and misdirection. I'm hoping that becomes part of our lexicon. We're going to spend decades repairing the damage from these last seven years.

Oh, and.........I'm still hoping to go to Heaven, but I think I'll just take a few bad girls with me. We'll get them fake I.D.'s.

President *****-for-brains ain't looking too good in that picture.

What's good for one is good for all.

Now, if only all the major consolidated corps could manage pension accounts as good as W's buddies at Enron......http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.htm

Check out where Allen Sloan has his money. I read money articles with a sketical eye. There are reasosn why people write what they do - sometimes its passion, other times it is a desire for truth but most of the time it is to direct attention or opinion for the authors own financial gain.

They were Clinton's buddies too, but you seem to like to forget facts like that:mad:

LOL

That nine trillion dollar windfall is right around the corner. Maybe we can give another $4billion tax break to the oil sector to help that happen.

This year, debt service alone on the $8.9 trillion Federal debt is $406 billion. We have only been at year-to-year surplus two years in the past 40 years -- the latter two years of Clinton's presidency.

Some projections call for the deficit to hit 19% of GDP in 2050.

And yet, the Federal debt isn't even on the radar for the majority of voters.

Frankly, next to the balance, the budget deficit is such a joke these days I can't find myself caring anymore. You can take every dollar, and it still would not cover it. The way the system is set up, any dollar has interest owed on it. Pull yer money out, take a look at it...whats it backed by? Nothing...every freaken dollar is debt which the government owes interest on, unless you have one of those backed by gold, but thats pretty rare.

Deficit and Debt are not the same. You can't throw debt and budget around like they are interchangeable. You guys should know better.

A. Most predictions of surpluses are wrong and optomistic

B. It does not count to have the government tell you the deficit is decreasing when it is merely increasing at a decreasing rate


C. The fed is the only branch of government that can run a deficit

D. Having so much debt owned by foreigners isn't the best idea in the world

E. Trickle-down economics is a theory. Ask R.R. and A.H.W.B about it. Hence; cutting taxes to a point where the debt continues to grow and somehow think we will "grow our way out for the unforseeable future makes as much sense as the current real estate speculative debacle or buying into Amway

Just a few points for the more enthusiastic of you to take apart. But, humor the old guy by providing verifiable facts. That would be a welcome change.