[Sub-Driver]

Nancy Pelosi is sadden......

[Sir Gawain]

Too bad we're spending like a drunken sailor or there would be nearly no deficit. Thx Repubs!

[SoFloFreeper]

Democrat reaction:

[The G Man]

[Moonman62]

So spending and tax revenues are outpacing economic growth at least two to one. That doesn't sound so great to me.

[RonnG]

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.

[JRios1968]

The reason for the improvement this year was the big jump in revenues, propelled by strong economic strongth.

But...I thought the tax cuts were supposed to be BAD for revenues!!!

[Jack Black]

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!)

[neodad]

propelled by strong economic strongth

I'm stuned. I didn't know we had any strongth.

[andy58-in-nh]

But, but , but... IT CAN'T BE TRUE!!!! The Democrats told us that "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" would result in an ocean of red ink! John Kerry told us so! He wouldn't lie, would he?

< /sarcasm>

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... )

[soccer_maniac]

Just see how much we're spending

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/tables.php?tabtype=t2&year=2005&subtype=t

-- how much would you be able to cut if you were in charge?

[MikeA]

But...but...but...but...but...Foley!!!!!!!

[MikeA]

[The_Victor]

propelled by strong economic strongth.

From the Dept. of Redundancy Department.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"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."

Always a negative.

[rfreedom4u]

When is someone going to alert the MSN?

[IrishMike]

Cut in half three years earlier than predicted !

[BJClinton]

revenues climbed by 11.7 percent, outpacing the 7.3 percent increase in spending.

Make that 1-2% and we would have no deficit in a couple years.

[2harddrive]

Too bad the budget deficit/surplus is a contrived accounting fiction...much akin to the social security "trust fund"...lol...both HOAXES on the masses.

[sappy]

Must have killed the AP and Yahoo to post this.

[MNJohnnie]

Thank you President Reagan for showing us a way. Thank you President Bush for following the way.

President Reagan, can you now convinced the big guy to send us a Congress with even a modicum of Fiscal Discipline? Then that number may go from red to black.