Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13%

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

Deficit reduction,  With a D president and D Congressional Majority?!

That cannot possibly be true.  That headline must be from some left leaning, socialist commie street sheet rag.

Oh yeah, Bloomberg.

After eight (8) years of Bush budgets that increased the deficit year after year, and that kept the Iraq and Afghanistan expenditures off the books, President Obama’s first budget is shrinking the budget.

Last month, the Treasury lowered its estimate for government borrowing from July through September, reflecting a reduction in federal spending.

What? A D President and D Congress reducing the US borrowing?  I cannot believe more so called “fiscally conservative” R’s haven’t been making a big deal out of this.

More to the point, how about even one R official or candidate pointing it out?    crickets

In the second half of 2009, the economy began to recover from the recession that started in December 2007. So far this year, payrolls have grown by 723,000 workers compared with the 8.4 million jobs lost during the recession, indicating it will take years for employment to recover.

What?! A net gain of jobs in 2010?  How can that be possible?  If that was true I’m sure ElRushbo and Beck and even the R posters here on CoPols would have acknowledged it.  RIght?

I wonder if any other media reported on this.

Wash Post.

SF Chronicle

Business Week

Daily Finance

FInancial Times

The Economist

I know President Reagan is dead.  But I wonder if perhaps there isn’t at least one Reagan republican who might think now is the time to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

How about Alan Greenspan.

“I am in favor for the first time in my memory of raising taxes,” he said. He had previously called for the George W. Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, which would raise taxes for most Americans. But keeping the cuts in place would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national deficit, he told the Council on Foreign Relations audience.”

Sheesh. Some liberal media rag must have gotten to him.  Oh- Kiplingers.

Ok, but he’s just one guy.  Surely if he was not just some loon off the reservation  there would be some other Reagan Republican

agreeing with him.

Oh- David Stockman.

Sort of defined “Reagan fiscal conservatism”

Greenspan isn’t the only laissez-faire economic conservative to come out in favor of higher taxes. In an August op-ed piece for the New York Times, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, noted that the nation’s debt is 40 times larger than it was 40 years ago – because of “the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Boy, I tell ya – that Kiplinger’s and Bloomberg are about as liberal a media as you can get.   I wonder if World Net Daily or Red State have any real information to add.

46 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gray in Mountains says:

    the Dems could not have done it without you. Oh, wait, we did.

  2. jpsandscl says:

    excellent in all aspects!

  3. Rainidog says:

    I hear heads exploding, teeth gnashing, eyes popping.  Lovely.

  4. Gray in Mountains says:

    Libertad loves him some graphs.

    • droll says:

      From what I’m seeing, everyone goes by the year, so this period is too small to be seen in a meaningful way.  Which makes sense, to see it on a grand scale would take a gigantic map.  So the differences have been updated in the monthly budget report, but not on a graph.

      Fortunately, Dems have a way of sticking with this trend in general, so we’ll see it soon enough.  At that time I suspect all Republicans to continue to deny its existence anyway.  No one likes to believe their lying eyes.  Making your question, my search, and my answer an exercise in futility.  Nice for us anyway!

      (How long until I’m presented with a graph from two years ago for that “lying eyes” comment, ignoring what I’ve just said about its accuracy?  Taking bets…)

  5. Laughing Boy says:

    From your own link:

    “The cumulative deficit for the fiscal year is a bit smaller, but still fairly wide. It doesn’t signal a lot of improvement.”

    • MADCO says:

      But it’s the right direction.

    • Froward69 says:

      you would be calling the trumpeters, historians and faux news to tell the world of what a great success this is. (considering the damage done by the previous administration.)

      admit it.

      (oh gawd I threw up a little thinking “president Palin”)  

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      is what are we buying?

      Cutting spending isn’t bad but it isn’t as important as funding necessary development.  We need development in sustainable energy not more military bases overseas.  We need education for our children not wealthy welfare.  We need to help the most vulnerable in our society as they struggle to become self-supporting taxpayers again.

      The declining deficits only works if it is coupled with renewed priorities on spending for those items which will help create a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic society.

      Like President Obama said in his address announcing the honorable conclusion of combat operations in Iraq, we need to turn the page on the War on Terror and work on the other issues that affect the security of our country.  The misguided invasion of Iraq is emblematic of the waste and wrong direction the country endured during the first decade of the 21st century.  This reduction in the deficit is a start at trying to reestablish better priorities and smarter funding for our most pressing needs.

    • Aristotle says:

      you post remarks like this, and I really have to wonder if you’re a true conservative.

      Do you agree or disagree with MADCO’s response?

  6. Diogenesdemar says:

    in today’s Washington Post (another “really liberal” rag)

    Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent


    Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.

    Just when you were forgetting how much you loved those guys when they were in charge?

  7. The realist says:

    they did not fund the tax cut to the wealthy in the early 2000’s, and did not fund the Medicare prescription drug bill.  Add to that the disaster created by the financial industry that finally blew up in the late 2000’s, and I guess we have a lot to thank the conservatives for.  But wait, there’s more – job creation during the Bush years was a disaster – the Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

    So after the decade of fun, any small improvement looks good to me.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.