White House projects record deficit for 2009

[TheHipHopBillGates]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the measure of the nation's total economy.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

While the deficit would be a record in absolute dollar terms, Nussle said it would be below the 2004 deficit, 3.6 percent of GDP, and the record deficit of 1983, 6 percent of GDP, when compared with the size of the overall U.S. economy.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," she said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.

"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

Nussle said the $170 billion, bipartisan stimulus, which congressional Democrats and Bush agreed to earlier this year, was a major reason the deficit was expected to reach record levels next year. The deficit projection for 2009 would have been only 2.2 percent of the economy, or $272 billion, if the stimulus package is excluded, Nussle said.

"The determination was made that getting the economy back on track was a higher priority than immediate deficit reduction," Nussle said.

He said the OMB projects that the deficit would fall after the 2009 budget year, and he predicted that the government would have a surplus in budget year 2012, if the president's budget blueprint is followed.

"Near-term deficits are temporary and manageable if -- and only if -- we keep spending in check, the tax burden low and the economy growing," Nussle said, warning that congressional Democrats were planning to add billions of dollars in spending to the federal budget.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year. View a history of the government deficits and surpluses »

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history."

Conrad, who chairs the Senate's budget committee, accused the president of "squandering" the surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in March projected the deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends September 30, would be $357 billion. It predicted the 2009 deficit to be $342 billion, if the president's proposals were adopted.

Both assumptions, however, were made before the economic stimulus package was passed by Congress and signed by the president this spring. The CBO said it would release revised deficit estimates in September.

The two major presidential candidates -- Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain -- used news that the United States' budget deficit will hit a record high as an opportunity to criticize each other's fiscal plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

[Chris]

So much for bush 2004 speech about getting the deficit gone by 2009.. just 1 more thing he putzed up. this guy is better wearing flight jackets and acting like hes in charge, than actually being in charge.

next up....

[jameznyhc]

next up ..lol i have a feeling mccain will be worse.. and obama will be worse than mccain ..not a good time to be republican ill tell ya that

[Chris]

next up ..lol i have a feeling mccain will be worse.. and obama will be worse than mccain ..not a good time to be republican ill tell ya that

not a good time to be anything really.


countrys all messed up.

[metfan85]

we gotta drop labels, democrat republican conservative liberal means nothing nowadays

[CraftyVet16]

we gotta drop labels, democrat republican conservative liberal means nothing nowadays

unfortunatley we have the worst political system in the free world.... people that should be president do not even have a chance... its horrible

[metfan85]

unfortunatley we have the worst political system in the free world.... people that should be president do not even have a chance... its horrible

i dont know if we have the worst.. a lot of these European countries with 12 different parties in parliament are a mess as well.... but I def agree that we've had the shittiest choices as President, anyone with novel ideas on either sides gets shot down by the establishment

[Defekted]

What a joke. Im also down with dropping labels, except for one "worst president evaaaaaaaaaaa"

[TheHipHopBillGates]

this is a Republican controlled Administration right? Where's the traditional fiscal conservatism? Actually where's it been the last 8 years?

[ShaE]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.


nd Bush's eloquent way of finally acknowledging the economic problem
"Wall Street got drunk"

[ShaE]

we gotta drop labels, democrat republican conservative liberal means nothing nowadays
right. all they do is confine people to certain ideals and positions they may not necessarily have. also, jamez, how are you so sure how much worse mccain or obama would be when we all know WE ALL have been wrong before. rudy much?

[ShaE]

this is a Republican controlled Administration right? Where's the traditional fiscal conservatism? Actually where's it been the last 8 years?
No, they're not republicans, they're opportunists who don't care one bit for genuine republican ideology, only for how they can exploit the label to leverage the power/profit for themselves.

They sold themselves using the republican label, they couldn't be further from it in reality.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

nd Bush's eloquent way of finally acknowledging the economic problem
"Wall Street got drunk"

Well that's an experience he can relate too.

[metfan85]

right. all they do is confine people to certain ideals and positions they may not necessarily have. also, jamez, how are you so sure how much worse mccain or obama would be when we all know WE ALL have been wrong before. rudy much?

yup and whos to say liberals are even liberals and conservatives are conservatives. lately the "left wing" has picked up the old rights cause of non-interventionism meanwhile republican "right wngers" are for intervention everywhere...
just look at how Pat Buchanan had more in common with Hillary Clinton and Obama than John McCain

[metfan85]

No, they're not republicans, they're opportunists who don't care one bit for genuine republican ideology, only for how they can exploit the label to leverage the power/profit for themselves.

They sold themselves using the republican label, they couldn't be further from it in reality.

:agree there needs to be a new fusion party if you ask me

[TheHipHopBillGates]

:agree there needs to be a new fusion party if you ask me

the new fusion party has been at since the Reagan chose a former head of the CIA for a VP and thought that ment he could pick off Latin America leaders & play war games like he was playing Call of Duty on X box, and started de-regulation of industries to find "competitve pricing" for redistribution of wealth. The irony of de-regulation is that it's come full swing and the 2 biggest examples Standard Oil & Ma Bell are almost completely back together.

[jameznyhc]

this is a Republican controlled Administration right? Where's the traditional fiscal conservatism? Actually where's it been the last 8 years?

out the window ..that why we threw them out in 06 lol ..the dems slaughtered us and deserved too.. what have the dems done ?..stop drilling? give bush money for the war? approve the surge? apprpove fisa? ..lol yeah theyre efrfective as well ..

[ShaE]

Well that's an experience he can relate too.
clever, isn't he lol

[ShaE]

yup and whos to say liberals are even liberals and conservatives are conservatives. lately the "left wing" has picked up the old rights cause of non-interventionism meanwhile republican "right wngers" are for intervention everywhere...
just look at how Pat Buchanan had more in common with Hillary Clinton and Obama than John McCain
I think all of this leaning and shuffing, mixing of views, just proves that people do not have rigidly set, uniform ideas about how we should be governed, how we live, laws, etc. You can't fit people neatly into one category or another anymore, almost everyone blurs the line somewhere, so who will cater to them?

we definitely need system reform.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

out the window ..that why we threw them out in 06 lol ..the dems slaughtered us and deserved too.. what have the dems done ?..stop drilling? give bush money for the war? approve the surge? apprpove fisa? ..lol yeah theyre efrfective as well ..

hard to get a lot done when you have a guy who doesn't veto a single fucking thing his first 6 years in office, starts vetoeing everything that comes across his desk. When you have a dem controlled congress & a dem president and their infective, then you can have a free for all, but until then it doesn't really mean much.

[ShaE]

hard to get a lot done when you have a guy who doesn't veto a single fucking thing his first 6 years in office, starts vetoeing everything that comes across his desk. When you have a dem controlled congress & a dem president and their infective, then you can have a free for all, but until then it doesn't really mean much.
Nancy pelosi was on the daily show last nite and stewart asked about the balance of power between congress and the president, and are they rolling over. she made an interesting point that for the majority of bush's presidency he had a republican congress, and that congress was a rubber stamp for any item he wanted pushed through. when the majority in congress becomes an extension of the executive's will, the president has far too much power. he should not have the backing and unwavering support of every represenative in congress who happens to be from his party- it does our system of checks/balances and ultimately us, a disservice. how is congress checking the president if their support for any law/program is based solely on party affiliation?

she admitted being disappointed w/ congress failure to end iraq, and said that if a democratic president is elected, the democrats in congress should not rank and file behind him on every issue, it's not how our system is supposed to be run. he asked specifically about obama, and on what issue might she feel congress would be against, and she said no president should have the support of congress on the issue of domestic surveillance, republican or democrat.

pretty interesting segment

[jameznyhc]

hard to get a lot done when you have a guy who doesn't veto a single fucking thing his first 6 years in office, starts vetoeing everything that comes across his desk. When you have a dem controlled congress & a dem president and their infective, then you can have a free for all, but until then it doesn't really mean much.

i disagree newt got many bills signed by clinton ..dmes got alot of bills signed by Reagan .. Pelosi sucks she couldnt close a door ..politics is sales

[ShaE]

i disagree newt got many bills signed by clinton ..
wouldn't that be to clinton's credit then? signing off on legislation propelled from the other side?willing to cooperate? why won't bush? he's immovable. that's the point.

[jameznyhc]

Nancy pelosi was on the daily show last nite and stewart asked about the balance of power between congress and the president, and are they rolling over. she made an interesting point that for the majority of bush's presidency he had a republican congress, and that congress was a rubber stamp for any item he wanted pushed through. when the majority in congress becomes an extension of the executive's will, the president has far too much power. he should not have the backing and unwavering support of every represenative in congress who happens to be from his party- it does our system of checks/balances and ultimately us, a disservice. how is congress checking the president if their support for any law/program is based solely on party affiliation?

she admitted being disappointed w/ congress failure to end iraq, and said that if a democratic president is elected, the democrats in congress should not rank and file behind him on every issue, it's not how our system is supposed to be run. he asked specifically about obama, and on what issue might she feel congress would be against, and she said no president should have the support of congress on the issue of domestic surveillance, republican or democrat.

pretty interesting segment

she full of shit she could have refused to fund and/or shut down govt the way gingrich did to get clinton to move ..lol .. dems=excuses ..you see me making excuses for the loser lowlife repubs of 06??

[jameznyhc]

yup and whos to say liberals are even liberals and conservatives are conservatives. lately the "left wing" has picked up the old rights cause of non-interventionism meanwhile republican "right wngers" are for intervention everywhere...
just look at how Pat Buchanan had more in common with Hillary Clinton and Obama than John McCain

buchanan never liked intervention .. thats why they wanted to run him in 88 after reagan neo-con revolution

[TheHipHopBillGates]

i disagree newt got many bills signed by clinton ..dmes got alot of bills signed by Reagan .. Pelosi sucks she couldnt close a door ..politics is sales

Clinton was the economy was rolling, there was no seirous war, it was all sugar. Bush has had a pre-set agenda he's been carrying out and he doesn't carry if you has a single person on board. The guy abused the single largest amount of political capital this country has ever seen, and the state we're in now is the result.

[ShaE]

she full of shit she could have refused to fund and/or shut down govt the way gingrich did to get clinton to move ..lol .. dems=excuses ..you see me making excuses for the loser lowlife repubs of 06??
she didn't make an excuse, he asked her what she was disappointed with congress about, and she said failure to act to end the war. she said teh house sent bills to the senate to cut funding and set conditions, and they came with with funding, and no conditions.

why must everything be an excuse to you? she was actually very candid. she didn't praise obama, or say they should unwaveringly agree w/ him, or not accept responsibility for their lack of action. she's being realistic. a majority in the senate, esp when you have an opposing party president, doesn't mean = guaranteed, you still need 9 votes from the other side and for it to get across the white house desk.

that's not an excuse jamez, it's reality.
her point is right, either party, it's dangerous for the president to exercise a stranglehold over congress.

[jameznyhc]

wouldn't that be to clinton's credit then? signing off on legislation propelled from the other side?willing to cooperate? why won't bush? he's immovable. that's the point.

no it means gingrich is more efective than pelosi

means tip oneil was eefectibve when dealing with reagan

[ShaE]

Clinton was the economy was rolling, there was no seirous war, it was all sugar. Bush has had a pre-set agenda he's been carrying out and he doesn't carry if you has a single person on board. The guy abused the single largest amount of political capital this country has ever seen, and the state we're in now is the result.
If a dollar amount could be placed on political capital achieved post 9/11, and lost to date, conservatives would have a whole new outlook on this, guaranteed lol

[jameznyhc]

Clinton was the economy was rolling, there was no seirous war, it was all sugar. Bush has had a pre-set agenda he's been carrying out and he doesn't carry if you has a single person on board. The guy abused the single largest amount of political capital this country has ever seen, and the state we're in now is the result.

i disagree or he would have been fired in 04 .. like his dad and carter ...bad presidents dont get re-elected

[ShaE]

no it means gingrich is more efective than pelosi

means tip oneil was eefectibve when dealing with reagan
haha that's how you'd look at it. i see it as, pelosi and gingrich didn't make the decision, clinton and bush did.

gingrich doesn't get credit b/c clinton was willing to approve legislation that didn't originate w/ his party, he's not the final word that makes or breaks the deal, the president is. clinton chose to be flexible.

pelosi shouldn't be blamed b/c bush won't give legislation from the dem congress the time of day, he is the last word, he needs to sign off on what congress brings to the table, and he WON'T.

the president signs bills into law, not the speaker of the house, they make the call. clinton was willing, bush is not. pelosi cannot FORCE bush not to veto, same as gingrich didn't force clinton to cooperate.

why are you giving the other party credit for the first person's decisions? the buck stops w/ the president, it's his call whether or not congress and his office will be deadlocked on every issue or if they'll be willing to work together to make some progress.

how ineffective is it to keep proposing bills only to have them vetoed no question?

[TheHipHopBillGates]

If a dollar amount could be placed on political capital achieved post 9/11, and lost to date, conservatives would have a whole new outlook on this, guaranteed lol

you could really put a visual of it, just use the median house value chart, mid term spike and now its crashing down.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

i disagree or he would have been fired in 04 .. like his dad and carter ...bad presidents dont get re-elected

His dad went up with someone who had a personality, you mixed and matched at put JR. against Bill or Sr. vs. Kerry and the results are different.

[metfan85]

i disagree or he would have been fired in 04 .. like his dad and carter ...bad presidents dont get re-elected

and truly great President's get things done in 1 term and leave. James K. Polk, greatest president ever, did what he said he was going to do in 1 term and did not seek reelection

[ShaE]

The intelligence of our system of checks and balances, division of power, turns on itself when the people involved do not exercise their powers effectively. congress must challenge and question the president, regardless of party,and be willing to stand up to him. the president must not bully/veto everything in sight, and consider all legislation on it's individual merit, not based upon who's championed it and which party will get credit. they both need to be able to see value on the other side's points and be willing to give support when its warranted, not holding back b/c they can't reach across the aisle to the enemy.

a lot more would get done.

[jameznyhc]

no bush gets credit cause he gets whatever he wants from congress lol ..then send a bill ..he sends it back until he gets what he wants ..i love it .. so you can diss him ..but he very eefective as a lame duck .. he gets everything his way .. dem congreess is supposed to be a check and balance ...not roll over the way they do .. newt shut down govt for 3 days

[ShaE]

and truly great President's get things done in 1 term and leave. James K. Polk, greatest president ever, did what he said he was going to do in 1 term and did not seek reelection
that just sounds like a case where a great president happened to only want to serve one term. where do you find the basis for saying truly great presidents leave after 1 term?

if he had gotten all that done in two terms, he wouldn't still be great?

[jameznyhc]

and truly great President's get things done in 1 term and leave. James K. Polk, greatest president ever, did what he said he was going to do in 1 term and did not seek reelection

if bush first term sucked hed be fired

[ShaE]

no bush gets credit cause he gets whatever he wants from congress lol ..then send a bill ..he sends it back until he gets what he wants ..i love it .. so you can diss him ..but he very eefective as a lame duck .. he gets everything his way .. dem congreess is supposed to be a check and balance ...not roll over the way they do .. newt shut down govt for 3 days
i wasn't aware that stubbornness and abuse of power were admirable qualities.

[metfan85]

The intelligence of our system of checks and balances, division of power, turns on itself when the people involved do not exercise their powers effectively. congress must challenge and question the president, regardless of party,and be willing to stand up to him. the president must not bully/veto everything in sight, and consider all legislation on it's individual merit, not based upon who's championed it and which party will get credit. they both need to be able to see value on the other side's points and be willing to give support when its warranted, not holding back b/c they can't reach across the aisle to the enemy.

a lot more would get done.

amen.
on that note Ill talk to you all in a week and a half im off to Georgia for a lil r&r shoot some rifles play a lil baseball ahh cant wait bye byeee :heythere

[metfan85]

that just sounds like a case where a great president happened to only want to serve one term. where do you find the basis for saying truly great presidents leave after 1 term?

if he had gotten all that done in two terms, he wouldn't still be great?

ahh i already said goodbye but what Im trying to say is he stuck to his word like a man of honor would

[ShaE]

amen.
on that note Ill talk to you all in a week and a half im off to Georgia for a lil r&r shoot some rifles play a lil baseball ahh cant wait bye byeee :heythere
have fun :)

[ShaE]

ahh i already said goodbye but what Im trying to say is he stuck to his word like a man of honor would
sometimes people don't stick to their word b/c of honor, they do it b/c they never considered any other option or approach.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

if bush first term sucked hed be fired

had nothing to do with it, the only reason he got re-elected is because the dems picked a bad candidate with a bad campaign manager who didn't know how to react when Rove made the election about ideals instead of issues like gay marriage in Ohio. Propaganda & the Over inflated housing market one that election, and since we've been paying for it since. Anyone can rob Peter to pay Paul, but obviously as what's visible now it doesn't maintain long-term success.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

amen.
on that note Ill talk to you all in a week and a half im off to Georgia for a lil r&r shoot some rifles play a lil baseball ahh cant wait bye byeee :heythere

have fun.