Skip to comments.Federal deficit now lowest in 4 years
Posted on 10/11/2006 7:25:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Federal deficit now lowest in 4 years
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer 4 minutes ago
The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years.
The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing President Bush an economic bragging point as Republicans go into the final four weeks of a battle for control of Congress.
Both spending and tax revenues climbed to all-time highs. The sharp narrowing of the deficit reflected the fact that revenues climbed by 11.7 percent, outpacing the 7.3 percent increase in spending.
The 2006 deficit was far lower than the $423 billion figure the administration had projected last February and also represented an improvement from a July revised estimate of $295.8 billion.
It was the smallest deficit since a $159 billion imbalance in 2002, a shortfall that came after four straight years of budget surpluses, the longest stretch that the government had finished in seven decades.
Since that time, the government has recorded three of the biggest deficits in history in dollar terms including an all-time record of $413 billion in 2004.
The reason for the improvement this year was the big jump in revenues, propelled by strong economic strongth.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Too bad we're spending like a drunken sailor or there would be nearly no deficit. Thx Repubs!
It's that big a deal when you're only comparing it against yourself. I mean, fine, it's down compared to your bigger spending years. Fine.
sorry, meant to say not that big a deal. how does the deficit compare to, say, the 1990s?
War does create "drunken sailors".
But seriously, this dramatic reduction in the deficit is great news, news that should be touted in the MSM, but you won't see me holding my breath waiting, or for the MSM to give credit to Bush tax cuts.
So spending and tax revenues are outpacing economic growth at least two to one. That doesn't sound so great to me.
Is there any relevant comparison there?
To be true to our principles, we should have let Alqueda overrun the country, instead. /sarc
Wow! The AP story just a few hours ago said the 2006 deficit was $250 B..and now its down to $247.7B In just a few short hour's time.
WWII did so legitimately, but GWB was a big spender long before the current war, which takes up only a tiny fraction of the GDP that WWII did.
Compared to seriously big wars, this ones a pimple on our buttocks. No excuse.
> Too bad we're spending like a drunken sailor or there would be nearly no deficit. Thx Repubs!
Yep. I'm not impressed that the spendthrift jerks in Congress are only losing money at the shocking rate of 4 years ago, and not the ludicrous rate of last year.
Not that the Democrats would do any better, but dang-- we're supposed to be the party of fiscal solvency. What a joke.
But...I thought the tax cuts were supposed to be BAD for revenues!!!
The so called "four years of surplus" fairy tale repeated here is part of the standard Clinton legacy building, and is nonsense.
The surplus only existed because of the absurd accounting rules used by Congress and the President. If more rational accounting rules were used, say those that required for incuding future pension liabilities (like, for instance the rules the Government requires OTHER big entities like GM and Ford to use) then the so-called "surplus" would have been revealed as a very deep deficit.
I was gratified to see this finally admitted this summer in a front page USA Today story.
Anyone can verify this easily be visiting the Bureau of the Public Debt. You will note that despite (two, three, four!!) years of Clintonian "surplus" the actual debt of the USA increased EACH AND EVERY YEAR of his era of cheap sex in the White House.
I now return control of your screen to the lying MSM and their sock-puppet reporters. (Economics reporter! HA!)
Puppet shows and games for hurrican non-victims: $22.6 million
I'm with you. A $247.7 billion dollar deficit is nothing to celebrate. It just brings us to hell at a little slower rate than lets say a $450 billion dollar deficit.
I'm stuned. I didn't know we had any strongth.
Anyone care to guess how the mainstream media is going to play this:
If you guessed, "They'll say that Republicans only claim that tax cuts led to higher revenues, and it's all temporary anyway..."
Come on down!! You've won today's grand prize on "Dinosaur Media Showcase"! (Tell 'em what he won, Sandy... )
If the same rules were used consistently, the drunken-sailor spending of this regime would be even more obviously outrageous.
According to the dedicated misery mongers from the loony left, all news is bad news and it doesn't matter if the deficit is going up or going down. Those of us who work for a living see increased income and reduced debt as well, good!
--but that's just how we see it...
It is going down. What do you think will happen with a Pelosi house and a Reid senate??????
What do you think Pelosi and Reid will do if in power? There are other contributing factors to the deficit. See post #23, unless you want to try and rewrite history.
Just see how much we're spending
-- how much would you be able to cut if you were in charge?
What does that have to do with Republican spending, Mr. Strawman?
Sky is falling nothing good ever happens I am so depressed its ALL REPUBS FAULT whiner, democrats will make it worse and there are contributing factors that led to the deficit besides repubs over spending, unless you want to pull a Clinton and rewrite history.
Apparently Mr. Big-government-liberal hates republican tax cuts-- no matter how low the deficit goes.
Besides your point carries no weight from the "European Message Board." Take a hike. Our economy kicks the crap out of all of Europe's combined. You must be you jealous.
It is amazing. We have low taxes, great job growth, low unemployment, a strong econmy and the deficit is going down and out come the whiners about over spending. Well, if the deficit is going down, they are no longer over spending, so these freepers should get over it because IT IS OLD NEWS.
So the Clinton years were really a big deficit? Who controlled Congress during the Clinton years? Oops. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Dems spend like crazy doesn't mean it's ok for Repubs to do the same. Well it's not ok to anyone but party hacks such as yourself.
ROTFL you assume too much. Who said I lived in Europe?
If the deficit is going down, that means we are making more than we are spending. OKAY.
I see it's not that hard to confuse you. The flag I fly on my profile means nothing. I think I'll change it to Japan now. I'm kinda bored with the EU one. Hope that doesn't throw you off too much.
I don't know who taught you economics, but they should have their teaching license revoked. If, by the end of 2006, there is a zero deficit, THAT means we are making more than we're spending. The deficit is LOWER than it was last year. Those two words, "the" and "deficit", mean that there IS a deficit, and by default, we are still overspending!
I think you're wasting your time.
Not all all. It just shows me your maturity level. It is prepubesence.
Letting AL Qaida "overrun" us is the alternative to deficits?
Nice conservative principles we are showing here!
I'm deeply hurt that you don't approve of what flags I fly.
Libby PA and Sir Gawain are not conservaitives, they do not even play one on TV. They are here trying to make the case for a change. It will not work though.
"What do you think will happen with a Pelosi house and a Reid senate??????"
I will answer this with another question, "Why has government spending gone up at a much greater rate with a republican presidency and congress than anytime since WWII?" I don't think Pelosi and Reid will control spending any better or worse than Hastert or Frist. The republicans and democrats both like stealing our money and then borrow more.
I could care less. If you change flags, like you change your underwear, it shows you have zero loyalty to anyone but yourself. Which means you are a liberal.
Heres the other issue no one talks about during the 90s. Infrastructure. Since Bush has been president, the media and the Dems have talked about all the infrastructe that needs to be done, schools rebuilt, roads done. Why didn't Clinton use the surplus to fix these problems?
Boy all you Buchannon libertarians come out at once. News for you guys, Buchannon could not get 1% of the vote if he tried.
I'm sure I'm more conservative than you are. So much so that I actually hold "conservatives" accountable for betraying those values.
I doubt it. I am not an one issue voter. I am very conservative but am able to look at all the issues at once, not just the deficit. Vote libertairan this time around. I am sure they will get about .000001% of the vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.