The federal budget deficit for May 2002 was $80.63 billion, the worst EVER in the history of the United States. Before anyone starts screaming "war on terror" please note that the previous record was August 2001.

(Note to GW - August comes before September)

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

I don't believe you are accurately reading your source material (which is kind of interesting, given that you include a gratuitous slam on the president's intelligence). I think your information is based on the PROJECTED annual deficit based upon PROJECTED receipts of tax income, not a single month's budget deficit standing alone. I could be wrong, though.

Post a link so we can read what the story actually says.

Usually, it's the trade deficit that is accounted for on an monthly basis. That's my guess (without checking).

This is probably the story to which Razorback was referring. "Federal Government Posts $80.63 Billion Deficit for May." The trade deficit for April was "only" $35.9 billion.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
You are correct, twin. Leave it to a razorback to have no clue about what he's babbling.

---

I think you owe razorback an apology, Ump25. The story linked by DCBucky unequivocally and objectively states that this is the budget deficit for the month of May 2002. However, it also states that this is the biggest monthly deficit in two years, so either razorback read a different source with contradicting facts, or was mistaken on that point. Either way, without evidence to the contrary, I think I trust the Dow Jones Newswire .

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

The budget deficit was exarcerbated by that awful defense bill with its massive giveaways (many of which DID go to Republican districts), but the major problem is the massive, fiscally irresponsible TAX CUT measure, which was predicated on a rosy picture of budget surpluses and economic growth that even when originally put forward did not appear sustainable.

It also was an inane attempt to reign in Congress's ability to fund governmental programs, but as is now proving to be the case, it also means that Bush cannot fund programs in which he believes, like education, funding for police officers, and so forth. Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski and Samuel Waksal get additional millions in their pockets even though they've STOLEN millions from shareholders, investors and employees, while the rest of us now have to begin dealing with the consequences of rising interest payments on rising debt and foreign investors' falling confidence in our economy and the slipping dollar.

It is possible to fund the expanding war on terrorism and domestic security without incurring such huge deficits, but they require revoking the tax cuts on the richest Americans, providing incentives for companies to grow and invest in new equipment and capital improvements, and returning to the fiscal discipline of the Clinton years. The current we-can-have-it-all outlook of the administration and the Republican House is disastrous.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
jqueer, I'm sure razorback didn't think my comment was some deep, personal attack. That's the problem with (a) written comments, and ( people in general nowadays. In (a), it's almost impossible to tell sarcasm, facetiousness, humor, etc. In (, well...we're just too damn sensitive these days.

Besides, I did say twin was correct, for he commented that the trade deficit was calculated on a monthly basis and reported as such.

Razorback? Arkansas? Redneck? You get the picture.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

---

Ooh ooh ooh, can we get into a "my humor's drier than yours" contest? I did recognize that your comment was not a personal attack, I was just indicating that part of razorback's info appeared correct and part did not. And my lead in was a little throw away comment to get people in the mood. Oh well, we are victims of the computer age.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Normally I resist most politically charged threads such as this one. Those of you who know me know I am a Democrat. Generally socially liberal with some conservative open mindedness when it comes to things like money, budgets and/or the federal budget and all its entails. I didn't vote for Bush, but as far as his handling of the 9/11/ situation, I think he is doing a great job. Now when it comes to the domestic situation, I would have to say he is not doing too good. The Pacific Northwest is hurting, bad. The unemployment rate in both Washington Sate and Oregon are still mired above the national average. I am disappointed he is not making it a personal issue to try to get our stonewalled economy moving, and to let Congress know in no uncertain terms that unless the fat and pork is trimmed, any budget busting bills will be vetoed. Case Closed!!!
It is my belief that Bushs' tax cut ( primarily to the wealthy), and I don't care if they do seem to pay a higher tax rate or not, if they are that wealthy, they should)is primarily responsible for the finacial mess our country is in. Period!! Heres a novel idea. How bout a tax cut for the lower or middle class for once!!!!! Now theres' an idea!!!

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Everybody who pays income taxes got a tax cut thanks to Bush's rate cuts. I can see it in my paycheck. Not a lot, but in the scheme of things I don't make a lot of money (but I'm doing okay, really ).

No, everyone who pays taxes did NOT get a tax cut based on Bush's measure. Many middle and lower-income taxpayers got a tax cut because the DEMOCRATS pushed through the measure to provide an immediate stimulus, which was given out in 2001, but as many taxpayers realized this April 15 (2002), it was subtracted from your expected refund *this* year. Bush's tax cut is grossly slanted towards the upper richest 1% of the country, and grows increasingly uneven as we approach 2010. Moreover, the push to end the inheritance tax, which is now being called the "death tax" and which affects--yet again!--the upper richest cadre of Americans, will deprive the Federal government of billions of dollars. Billions. As we see constantly, when the government is flush, as under Clinton, tax dollars can go towards helping the economy to grow, to expand, to prosper. In tight times as now, when we are having to fund a war, protect ourselves against a shadowy pan-global terrorist group, defend our borders and homeland, fund necessary domestic programs, and fight natural disasters (because our tax dollars are going to assist every farmer stricken by the droughts, to extinguish those horrific fires burning throughout the South and West, etc.), we need the money. It ain't coming out of David Rockefeller or Mike Bloomberg or George W. Bush's pockets--alone.

Thanks DCBucky for the link. I got my information from CBS Marketwatch but it was essentaily the same article.

As far as Umps comments "Leave it to a razorback to have no clue about what he's babbling" and
"Redneck" - Ill let his comments speak for themselves, no comment required.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Headline in this mornings Spokane-Spokesman Review," Nethercutt to run for fifth term".
Rep. George Nethercutt who represents Washington States' Fifth Congressional Distrcit announced his plans to run for an unprecendented fifth term this morning. Folks, this is the same guy who when he ran the first time, it would be his only time. Yeah, right. I think George has it too good in D.C. people. Two years ago when he ran again, and his competition said basically he broke his promise to the voters of the 5th Dist. He never admitted as such, just that he had changed his mind or something. Whatever George!

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:


The Defender was owned by an African American family known as the Sengstacke (sp?) family, who owned a couple such minority owned, community based newspapers, including one in Detroit, I believe. The Defender was a longterm minority presence in Chicago, the only real such presence, in fact. However, when the patriarch passed away recently, the family was faced with doom: They couldn't afford to pay the estate tax. Sadly, they were forced to sell the newspaper to pay the estate tax. Even more painful to them was that they were forced to sell to a nonminority group, thereby ending the longstanding presence of Chicago's only real black newspaper.

---

Sengstacke? Odd coincidence: there was an article about them in the _Washington Post_ this morning.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33354-2002Jun23.html>

>>
Purchase Keeps Newspaper in the Family
Nephew of Chicago Defender's Late Publisher Hopes to Revive Historic but Struggling Black Paper

By Kari Lydersen
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, June 24, 2002; Page A03


CHICAGO -- As Myiti Sengstacke's grandfather lived out his last days, she promised him that she would keep the newspaper he had run for 57 years in the family.

"He squeezed my hand really tight and nodded in approval," she said. "He wanted to keep the Sengstacke legacy at the paper."

That legacy was considerable: Through the heart of the 20th century, John H. Sengstacke had overseen the Chicago Defender's growth into one of the best known and most influential black newspapers in the nation.

But before he died in 1997 at age 84, the paper's finances and circulation had been in decline for years; he left the paper's parent company in a trust for Myiti and his other five grandchildren, but he also left an estate tax debt near $3 million. That debt led to a running drama over how to assure the Defender's survival.

Now, the family legacy may continue -- but not in the way Myiti Sengstacke vowed. A five-year effort to sell the Defender's parent company -- an effort that left many Defender readers anxious that it would be sold to owners who wouldn't appreciate the paper's history -- is ending with an agreement to sell to Tom Picou, the nephew of John Sengstacke's late wife.
....
<<

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

But Bush cut tax rates for all income tax payers. No arguing that.

Yes, the Dems pushed through the rebate, which was a horrible tactical error on their part. They should have known the end result would be known in total as "the Bush tax cut," no matter who came up with what little provision. And I think the rebate checks even had Bush's name on it somewhere. Brilliant. Plus, it's hard for Dems to attack the Bush tax cut, "except for this one little part we put in." They should have just been Democrats and opposed the whole thing.

The rebates set off a great debate, in which various lefty interest groups encouraged donors to send in their checks to help fight Bush. Which just makes the point: Tax cuts empower people to decide how to spend, save, invest, donate or tithe their own money.

Okay, here's a distinguished economist on Bush's disastrous TAX CUT, which was originally championed as a "stimulus" to the economy, which is has not proven to be (drag is more like it), and its effects BEFORE September 11, 2001:

New York Times
September 9, 2001

RECKONINGS

Hold Him to It

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Friday's jump in unemployment sent Wall Street into a tailspin, but it shouldn't have come as a big surprise. The U.S. economy may or may not be technically in recession, but it is certainly growing much more slowly than its potential. This "output gap" was bound to show up in higher unemployment.

More significant was the fact that the bad news on jobs followed bad news about consumer spending. The much-ballyhooed tax rebate, it seems, isn't having much impact. So much for cheery forecasts of imminent recovery. Now what?

First, don't give up on monetary policy. The slump during the first Bush administration dragged on much longer than anyone expected, even as the Fed kept cutting. But in the end rate, cuts did do the trick. I wouldn't be surprised if the Fed's funds rate goes to 2 or lower before we really see a turnaround, but the odds are still that rate cuts will eventually work.

What about fiscal policy? Some liberals have recently made common cause with the Bush administration, arguing that the economic slump is a reason to put aside promises to protect the Social Security surplus. But those liberals are making a big mistake.

Even on the straight economics of the case, it is by no means clear what good it would do to give up on protecting Social Security. By and large, the spending decisions that Congress will make over the next few months won't have much impact on the economy until late next year at the earliest. Even pessimistic analysts think that a recovery will already be under way by then.

Furthermore, responsible behavior can be rewarded — and irresponsible behavior punished — quite quickly. In 1993, in the face of a still- sluggish economy, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers urged Bill Clinton to commit himself to fiscal discipline. Such a commitment, they argued, would help keep long-term interest rates down and would do more to stimulate the economy, even in the short run, than any attempt to pump it up with deficit spending. And they were vindicated by events. So even an administration that is sincerely trying to fight an economic slowdown should be held to its fiscal promises. And when an administration isn't sincere about its motives, it's even more important to hold it accountable.

Those are strong words, but George W. Bush has a consistent pattern: he doesn't respond to events by changing his policies; he merely uses those events to justify his original agenda. One need only point to the way he used a short-term economic slowdown to push through a long-run tax cut almost identical to the one he proposed back in November 1999.

Given that the Bush tax cut wasn't designed to fight a recession, it's no surprise that it isn't working. The only part of the tax cut that does anything for the economy this year is the rebate — added to the plan at the insistence of Democrats. And the rebate is less than 2 percent of the 10- year total. Even if consumers spent it all (and it's already clear they won't), the rebate would hardly make a dent in the unemployment rate.

Meanwhile, the tax cut will cost the Treasury at least $2 trillion after 2004 — that is, after the economy will supposedly have recovered. That does little or nothing to fuel current consumer spending. But as Mr. Rubin and Mr. Summers could have told you, the prospect of long- run fiscal irresponsibility keeps long- term interest rates high. In other words, the Bush tax cut, aside from its devastating impact on long-run budget prospects, is also a short-run drag on the economy.

Is there any reason to suppose that Mr. Bush, if he is allowed to get away with breaking his promises on Social Security, will use his freedom of action to any better effect? None at all. In fact, during his brief press conference after the unemployment numbers came out, Mr. Bush did it again. Now that the excuse of a supposed energy crisis has evaporated, he tried to sell Dick Cheney's energy plan — the one that won't produce any oil for at least a decade — as part of his plan to fight the current slowdown.

So to those who think that Mr. Bush should be released from his promises because of the weak economy: think again. Mr. Bush won't use his freedom to good effect; he will simply use it — and you — to do more harm.

"3. The estate tax hurts family-owned businesses and farms

Estate tax opponents claim that a large proportion of American businesses never make it to the second generation and assert that the estate tax is the reason why. This is surely a case of the tail wagging the dog. Farms and other small businesses represent a small fraction of estate taxes. In 1997, farm assets were reported on less than 6 percent of all taxable estates, and closely held stock on less than 10 percent. Farm assets totaled a microscopic 0.3 percent of taxable estates; closely held stock, limited partnerships, and "other noncorporate business assets" accounted for less than 10 percent. Only 3 percent of estates consist mainly of farms or small business. These figures imply that the vast majority of estate taxes are paid by people who own neither farms nor small businesses, and that scaling back or eliminating the estate tax is a very blunt instrument for dealing with the issue.

Family farms and businesses already receive special treatment under the estate tax. Taxpayers may calculate the value of family farms and businesses on the basis of the value to family proprietors rather than market value. This can reduce gross assets by as much as $775,000. In addition, the estate tax liability due to family farms and businesses can be paid in installments over a 14-year period, with only interest payments at below-market rates due during the first five years. Legislation enacted in 1997 permits a special deduction of up to $675,000 worth of family-owned farms and businesses when they constitute at least 50 percent of an estate in which heirs materially participate. Moreover, small businesses already receive numerous income tax subsidies.

From "Resurrecting the Estate Tax"
Policy Brief #62—June 2000
by William G. Gale and Joel SlemrodBrookings Institution

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Okay, here's a distinguished economist on Bush's disastrous TAX CUT

---

Reasonable minds can differ about the Bush tax cut. Was it basic Keynesian economics (cut taxes and run deficits to stimulate the economy in a recession)? Or was it a giveaway to the rich?

But political hack Paul Krugman cannot, under definition of the term, be called a "distinguished economist." He's a whorish Bush hater best known for taking Enron money, maintaining silence while Enron was cooking the books (knowing full well that they ridiculously overpaid him for his input), and then trashing the company only after the bottom fell out and claiming that his post-collapse trashing is evidence of objectivity.

Krugman's "objectivity" (or lack thereof) has been well-chronicled (and criticized) by my personal hero, Andrew Sullivan. Krugman's never had an objectively positive remark on President Bush about anything. He's a hack of the worst kind and another example of the destruction of the NY Times under Howell Raines.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]