I posted last week about the good news of the deficit being lower, but the weenies didn't like Breitbar.com as a source. Well, you can now find it in many places, including ABC News. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2555294
The Deficit is down to $247.7 Biliion. The main reason is because the "deficit narrowed sharply because revenues climbed by 11.8 percent, outpacing a 7.4 percent increase in spending." Additionally, "Administration officials said the actual 2006 deficit is down to 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product. They said that is below the 40-year average deficit of about 2.3 percent of the GDP." That puts it into perspective. Democrats retort with the silly notion that they turned a huge surplus into a deficit - like that was our hard earned tax dollars that they sucked in under Clinton without any plans to spend it! Don't get me wrong, I prefer a balanced budget as a matter of operation, but let's make the tax cuts permanent!
2006-10-11 12:16:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Forget it , the libs want it to look bad and will twist facts and figures to prove their point. Clinton went in with a great economy and made it look like he did it. When his policies started to go downhill at the end of his term again they twisted fact so the next president was blamed for it, and to their delight it was a republican!
2006-10-11 12:31:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though there is a major deficit and a huge national debt, you're still insisting that progress is being made. O.K. Where?
More and more people are being killed which means more money is needed for more soldiers for this stupid war that the stubborn president is too stupid to admit his mistakes and just do something like try some peace for a change. You think just because the deficit is lower this week than last week that makes a difference? Your name must be Sammy Lunchmeat........
2006-10-11 12:30:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your figures are a joke
what they mean is that today I am only spending 2% more than I make
and paying off nothing on a national debt where the interest owed is still being added to the debt- at a rate greater than the deficit!
2006-10-11 12:30:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the full tax shrink debate became to improve the taxes on the wealthy decrease back to the Clinton era, no longer the midsection classification or decrease classification. i do no longer think of the wealthy might have felt an consequence if their taxes went up some share factors.
2016-12-13 06:38:47 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just out of curiosity, you do understand that the Deficit and the National Debt are two completely different things right?
2006-10-11 12:19:21 · answer #5 · answered by Salem 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
things are going well now... but let's not forget that the war is pumping billions into the economy too... that's a huge driving force that you fail to mention... probably much more so, or at least equal to tax cuts...
and there is still plenty of defict left with 250 billion... but yes.. it is a good sign...
2006-10-11 12:29:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's not.........Let's give tax breaks to the people who really need it, not the ones who already have so much money, it can't be spent fast enough. What you are hearing is a white wash of the real figures. I suspect anything the Repb. take credit for.
2006-10-11 12:30:34 · answer #7 · answered by firewomen 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Amen brother.
2006-10-11 12:28:27 · answer #8 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thanks just great. How come I still don't have enough money?
Lou Dobbs is doing a special on the crisis occurring
within the middle class next week.
I might be able to relate to that, better.
2006-10-11 12:22:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Forget it kid. Logic does not work on liberals.
2006-10-11 12:25:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋