Bush's FY 2009 budget is hilarious. It projects a surplus by 2012, despite the fact that the deficit was projected to go from $162 billion to $410 billion in FY 2008. The deficit will have risen to two and a half times its level in just a year, and yet we're supposed to believe that it'll suddenly change course, after Bush is safely out of office, and that we'll shortly have huge surpluses.

It's your classic "hockey stick" graph. To avoid having to make hard choices today, Bush projects a magical turnaround just out on the horizon -- after he's gone and can no longer be held accountable. If you dig into the numbers, you'll see he and the CBO assume three things: (1) We'll have a gigantic (17%+) rise in income tax receipts in 2009, (2) outlays will suddenly rise by only 1/3 their normal pace in 2012), and (3) no unexpected negative events will happen. If a real CEO tried to present that kind of budget projection to his Board, he'd get laughed right out of the room and into the unemployment line.

The reality is that Bush is leaving us with a budget that will have nearly the biggest deficit in history, and a budget that will be set up for perpetual deficits in the future, barring major changes. The shamelessness with which he projects otherwise is a disgrace.

Let's see what Congress does with it.

Bush doesn't sit at his desk calculator all day preparing these figures. He also doesn't just pick them from thin air.

I'm thinking there are some folks involved who don't spend all day on KFS bullshitting the other posters.

Thoughts?

We've seen what his crack team of economists is worth since the start of 2001, haven't we. I'd take just about any KFS bullshitter over Bush's team of bozos.

Well,for one thing this KFSer can balance my checkbook and make money.:o)

Arkady:

We've seen what his crack team of economists is worth since the start of 2001, haven't we. I'd take just about any KFS bullshitter over Bush's team of bozos.

How is it you are so isolated? Do you really not know what's taking place in other countries around the world.

You are one of the Whiners.

When you are honest in discussion with some on this board, your better off today then you were in 2000. Your assets have all increased, your salary has increased and shocking as it may seem, they keep you employed even as you spend your days here with the "retired".

When you are honest in discussion with some on this board, your better off today then you were in 2000. Your assets have all increased, your salary has increased and shocking as it may seem, they keep you employed even as you spend your days here with the "retired".

You retired,Jim? Just asking.

In the mid-to-late 90s things weren't going great in many countries. Our two chief economic rivals, Germany and Japan, were both going through very hard times. Yet the US was soaring. Clinton didn't have to whine about how bad things were globally, because he ensured that things went well here at home. Clinton didn't need an army of servile apologists to make excuses for him, the way Bush does.

As for my salary, I actually earned more, in real terms, in 2000 than I do today. But even if that weren't true, it's a stupid comparison. The relevant comparison isn't a person with X years of experience in 2000 with a person with X+8 years of experience in 2008. Rather, the relevant comparison is between like-situated people in those two years. And the person with X years of experience in 2008 is worse off than the person with X years was in 2000, on average. Real income levels and real stock index levels have fallen over that time, while the poverty rate has risen, as you should well know.

MaryAnne:

When you are honest in discussion with some on this board, your better off today then you were in 2000. Your assets have all increased, your salary has increased and shocking as it may seem, they keep you employed even as you spend your days here with the "retired".

You retired,Jim? Just asking.

About half-assed. lol

I still take some reservations but my workers and son take care of most of the business nowadays.

I'm more actively interested in opening Cozumel's first "gambling bar" with money for money gaming. It's a long process but I think I'm within about 45 to 60 days of completion.

Arkady:

In the mid-to-late 90s things weren't going great in many countries. Our two chief economic rivals, Germany and Japan, were both going through very hard times. Yet the US was soaring. Clinton didn't have to whine about how bad things were globally, because he ensured that things went well here at home. Clinton didn't need an army of servile apologists to make excuses for him, the way Bush does.

As for my salary, I actually earned more, in real terms, in 2000 than I do today. But even if that weren't true, it's a stupid comparison. The relevant comparison isn't a person with X years of experience in 2000 with a person with X+8 years of experience in 2008. Rather, the relevant comparison is between like-situated people in those two years. And the person with X years of experience in 2008 is worse off than the person with X years was in 2000, on average. Real income levels and real stock index levels have fallen over that time, while the poverty rate has risen, as you should well know.

My big brother can beat up your big brother! nah!

lol

Recent survey shows that poorer people spend more percentage of their income gambling than the more affluent do. Yet you think this is alright, when it benefits you, but bitch about social programs to help people in need being a transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Twisted.

He's more like a puck than a stick.

About half-assed. lol

I still take some reservations but my workers and son take care of most of the business nowadays.

I'm more actively interested in opening Cozumel's first "gambling bar" with money for money gaming. It's a long process but I think I'm within about 45 to 60 days of completion.

I may get my passport and be on my way! I usually win though.Fair warning! Paid for my last Las Vegas trip within 15 minutes of sitting down:o)

What would you call the gang in Congress? The Mighty Ducks?

I'm so sick of the libs throwing fecal matter every chance they get. The budgeting, authorization, and appropriation process is a governmental effort. It does not rest entirely in the Executive Branch. Senator Dodd, "The Dudd" and Barney "Lollypop Boy" Frank are trying to bail out the housing lenders to the tune of $300 billion. What does that do to your budget projections?

Why don't you guys stop acting like a gang of chimpanzees with your hooting and hollering, tree shaking, arm shaking, and spitting. The best way to balance the budget is to contact your Congressman, not President Bush.

CBK

comebackkid:

What would you call the gang in Congress? The Mighty Ducks?

I'm so sick of the libs throwing fecal matter every chance they get. The budgeting, authorization, and appropriation process is a governmental effort. It does not rest entirely in the Executive Branch. Senator Dodd, "The Dudd" and Barney "Lollypop Boy" Frank are trying to bail out the housing lenders to the tune of $300 billion. What does that do to your budget projections?

Why don't you guys stop acting like a gang of chimpanzees with your hooting and hollering, tree shaking, arm shaking, and spitting. The best way to balance the budget is to contact your Congressman, not President Bush.

CBK

Michael, there is little question this is directed at YOU!

The Democrats have tried to limit the damage Bush can cause to the country, but with the veto in the hands of Bush, and with Republicans having enough votes in the Senate to filibuster any legislation they want, there's only so much the Democrats can do.... for now. Fortunately, in November the people have a chance to change that.

As for the work of responsible legislators like Dodd and Frank, they're faced with a tough choice. Either they back some sort of bailout, and further exacorbate the dangerous budget deficits Bush's leadership has created, or they risk catastrophic collapse. It's awfully reminiscent of the last time we had a Republican in the White House, and we had to choose between a monumental S&L bailout or the potential collapse of our banking infrastructure. Why is it that Republican presidents always screw up the economy so badly?