What? Our economy ISN'T ruined?!

[Se7en]

<p>The deficit halved this year?&nbsp; <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTk5YTk0OWRiMjIxODdmNTQyNDdhYTJhZjlmNDc5YmQ=" target="_blank">Well, almost.</a></p><p>When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, &ldquo;Bush&rsquo;s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don&rsquo;t mix, analysts say.&rdquo; &ldquo;Fanciful,&rdquo; &ldquo;laughable&rdquo; and &ldquo;all spin,&rdquo; said the critics.<br /><br />Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush&rsquo;s goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009&mdash;not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.</p><p>But wait, I thought &quot;Tax cuts FOR THE RICH!!!!! won't work!!!!!&quot;</p><p>Apparently, they do work.&nbsp; And before you ask, that article isn't a glowing review of the Administration's spending policies.&nbsp; It just reflects actual reality, i.e. that the tax cuts have not been &quot;financially ruinous&quot;, as so many on the left claimed that they would be.</p>

[Jujubees2]

Of course, these numbers don't take in account the billions being&nbsp;spent in Iraq since that spending is cleverly kept out of the regular&nbsp;budget.

[KennethC]

I was initially skeptical about this story until I saw that it&nbsp;originated from that bastion of objectivity&nbsp;the NATIONAL REVIEW!

[cupcakelove]

That article lacks any real facts or figures, and bases their assertion
on a projection with out any explaination of where it came from.&nbsp;
And that website appears to be more than just a little biased towards
the right.<br />

[DarkHippie]

Don't make me start posting articles from the Nation!

[reeshy]

I don't know nuttin' about the economy...but I got a 2 step raise this April and I ain't complainin'!!!!!<br />

[Sheeplovr]

<p><span class="postbody">
Don't make me start posting articles from the Nation!</span></p><p>please do and fallow it up with some heeb jsut for kicks and round it off with black enterprise&nbsp;</p><p>from the artilce &quot;<span style="font-family: 'times new roman';">This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion&quot;</span></p><p>Where are we getting 8 trillion 32 billion dollars? this year while blowing an average 1.8 billion dollars a day on a crappy war<br />
</p>

[epo]

<p>All I know about the economy is the last three times we had a real boom in the economy coincided with the federal government raising the minimum wage.&nbsp; Shocker?&nbsp; I don't think so.....</p><p>Give people on the shit end of the stick more money and they spend it, everybody benefits.&nbsp; Without getting into a dissertation on the topic, it really blows a hole in that Republican &quot;trickle down economics&quot; bullshit, don't it?</p>

[zentraed]

<p>&nbsp;</p><strong>Se7en</strong> wrote:<br /><p>The deficit halved this year? <a target="_blank" href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTk5YTk0OWRiMjIxODdmNTQyNDdhYTJhZjlmNDc5YmQ=">Well, almost.</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. ... The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion... This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.<p>&nbsp;</p><p>But wait, I thought &quot;Tax cuts FOR THE RICH!!!!! won't work!!!!!&quot;</p><p>Apparently, they do work. And before you ask, that article isn't a glowing review of the Administration's spending policies. It just reflects actual reality, i.e. that the tax cuts have not been &quot;financially ruinous&quot;, as so many on the left claimed that they would be.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You're so excited because instead of spending half a trillion dollars we don't have, he's only spending $300 billion we don't have? And that's ongoing deficit spending. Translation: Our national debt is still piling up. Remember when we used to talk about paying down our national debt instead of adding to it? They've changed the conversation to &quot;Instead of owing $15 trillion, we're only going to owe $12 trillion. Our plan is working!&quot;<br /></p>

[Death Metal Moe]

I can't wait to hear Ron's &quot;Air America&quot; take on this.&nbsp; GOD, that is one of the 5 things I really hate about the show.

[TooLowBrow]

i wish i had a million dollars... pryramid schemes might work<br />

[NortonRules]

Just wait 'til the Democrats take over (hahahaha) and tax the hell out of everyone, so they can just hand it over to the lazy people who don't feel like working.&nbsp; At least the malt liquor and fried chicken markets would improve.&nbsp;

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><strong>NortonRules</strong> wrote:<br />Just wait 'til the Democrats take over (hahahaha) and tax the hell out of everyone, so they can just hand it over to the lazy people who don't feel like working. At least the malt liquor and fried chicken markets would improve.<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><blockquote /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Take the racist shit back to Wackbag asshole.&nbsp;</p>

[CruelCircus]

<strong>epo</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Give people on the shit end of the stick more money and they spend it, everybody benefits.&nbsp; Without getting into a dissertation on the topic, it really blows a hole in that Republican &quot;trickle down economics&quot; bullshit, don't it?</p><p>Not at all, really.&nbsp; One theory working does not disprove the other.&nbsp; It's entirely possible that both work just fine.</p>

[legroommusic]

<p>yeah? But </p><p><span class="forumlink"><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="6">WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?</font></span></p>

[zentraed]

<p>&nbsp;</p><strong>CruelCircus</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>epo</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Give people on the shit end of the stick more money and they spend it, everybody benefits. Without getting into a dissertation on the topic, it really blows a hole in that Republican &quot;trickle down economics&quot; bullshit, don't it?</p><p>Not at all, really. One theory working does not disprove the other. It's entirely possible that both work just fine.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you give the middle class and below extra money, they spend it. This can give the economy a short-term boost. If you give the wealthy money, they're likely to invest it, resulting in longer-term, sustained growth. If you do both at the same time, you can easily confuse the american public into thinking that cutting taxes on the rich is responsible for short-term boosts and that we should keep cutting their taxes....<br /></p>

[TooLowBrow]

good point<br />