Budget Surplus???

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
How can this be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Taxes, Gov't Spending Hit Records

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 12, 2006; 2:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years as corporate tax payments hit an all-time high, helping offset a record level for spending, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

The department said in its monthly budget report that government receipts surpassed spending by $10.98 billion last month. A year ago, the government ran a deficit of $2.85 billion in December.

The improvement reflected the fact that government receipts were up 12.1 percent from a year ago to $241.88 billion while government spending rose by a slower 5.6 percent to $230.9 billion. The figure for outlays still represented an all-time high for spending for any month.

Corporate income tax collections totaled a record $73.5 billion last month, surpassing the old record of $72 billion set in September.

Even with December's surplus, experts are predicting that the budget deficit for this year could well surge above $400 billion, reflecting increased government spending to help with reconstruction efforts in hurricane-ravaged states along the Gulf Coast.

The largest deficit in dollar terms was an imbalance of $413 billion in 2004. Last year, the deficit narrowed to $377 billion as a surge of tax revenues from an improving economy helped offset rising government spending.

President Bush has vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009 and still preserve the tax cuts he pushed through Congress in his first term.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said this week that the administration plans to lower the deficit through stringent controls on spending, which he said would be evident in the budget proposal for 2007 that Bush will send to Congress in early February.

However, budget experts are already predicting that Congress will balk at making sharp cuts in the growth of popular government programs, especially in an election year.

Through the first three months of the current budget year, which began on Oct. 1, government tax receipts have totaled $530.2 billion, up 8.8 percent from the same period a year ago.

Government spending totals $649.52 billion, a 7.2 percent increase from the same period a year ago. That resulted in a deficit for the first three months of the government's budget year of $119.31 billion, up 1.1 percent from the same period a year ago.

The December surplus marked the first surplus for that month since December 2002.
 
Think that surplus will be sucked up by:

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html
· Economists say official estimates are far too low
· New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the invasion, with the US military yesterday revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops killed during a wave of insurgent attacks on Thursday. More than 130 civilians were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a police recruiting station in Ramadi.

The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.

Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. "Our estimates are very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq or the UK." In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border, Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach $200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.

Three years later, with more than 140,000 US soldiers on the ground in Iraq, even the $200bn figure was very low, according to the two economists.

Congress has appropriated $251bn for military operations, and the Congressional budget office has now estimated that under one plausible scenario the Iraq war will cost over $230bn more in the next 10 years. According to Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes, whose paper is due to be presented to the Allied Social Sciences Association in Boston tomorrow, there are substantial future costs not included in the Congressional calculations.

For instance, the latest Pentagon figures show that more than 16,000 military personnel have been wounded in Iraq. Due to improvements in body armour, there has been an unusually high number of soldiers who have survived major wounds such as brain damage, spinal injuries and amputations. The economists predict the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who have suffered brain injuries alone could run to $35bn. Taking in increased defence spending as a result of the war, veterans' disability payments and demobilisation costs, the economists predict the budgetary costs of the war alone could approach $1 trillion.

The paper also came amid the first indications from the Pentagon that it intended to scale down its costly presence in Iraq this year.

Last night, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's number two, said in a video that hints of the American withdrawal amounted to a "victory for Islam".

The unforeseen costs of the war have been blamed on poor planning and vision by the architects of the invasion. In a frank admission yesterday, Paul Bremer, the first US administrator of postwar Iraq, said the Americans did not anticipate the uprising that has persisted since flaring in 2004. "We really didn't see the insurgency coming," he told NBC television.

But the economists' costings went much further than the economic value of lives lost. They factored in items such as the higher oil prices which could partly be attributed to the war. They also calculated the effect if a proportion of the money spent on the Iraq war was allocated to other causes. These factors could add tens of billions of dollars.

Mr Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist, said the paper, which will be available on josephstiglitz.com, did not attempt to explain whether Americans were deliberately misled or whether the underestimate was due to incompetence.

But in terms of the total cost of the war "there may have been alternative ways of spending a fraction of that amount that would have enhanced America's security more, and done a better job in winning the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East and promoting democracy".:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
97silverlsc said:
no comments from the right?
Sure. What do you think 9/11 cost in terms of loss of property, loss of life, loss of jobs, economic slowdown, increased security costs, etc. Way more than the war in Iraq is costing for sure. This war in the Middle East is one that will have to be fought, either now, or in the very near future. The guy in Iraq is bent on starting World War III and I predict he may succeed in that attempt by 2008 if he is not stopped now. So as long as we have a foothold over there, might as well take care of Iran and Syria at the same time. Btw, all the IED that are being used now have Syria and iran stamped all over them. They are all armor-piercing type munitions so Hillary can run around all she wants about more armour but in the end, it doesn't solve the problem. We need to escalate the war, not back down and back out.
 
MonsterMark said:
Sure. What do you think 9/11 cost in terms of loss of property, loss of life, loss of jobs, economic slowdown, increased security costs, etc. Way more than the war in Iraq is costing for sure. This war in the Middle East is one that will have to be fought, either now, or in the very near future. The guy in Iraq is bent on starting World War III and I predict he may succeed in that attempt by 2008 if he is not stopped now. So as long as we have a foothold over there, might as well take care of Iran and Syria at the same time.
I'd like to see your sources for your "estimates" of what 9/11 cost. Also, you're ignoring that the Shrubbites were estimating less than 100 billion for the cost of the war before it started, and that Iraq's oil would pay for the war. Both predictions proved false. It's a shame we couldn't spend one tenth of that money encouraging research in alternative energy sources instead of trying to take over one of the worlds remaining oil reserves and making ourselves into the bully on the block in the process. Being the bully just makes us a bigger target for all the groups out there tired of being bullied.

MonsterMark said:
Btw, all the IED that are being used now have Syria and iran stamped all over them. They are all armor-piercing type munitions so Hillary can run around all she wants about more armour but in the end, it doesn't solve the problem. We need to escalate the war, not back down and back out.
Sure about that? I'd be willing to bet they came from all those munitions dumps we failed to secure at the beginning of the war because we didn't have enough troops in country. The ones you guys poo-pooed the importance of when the issue was brought up, remember?
 
97silverlsc said:
Also, you're ignoring that the Shrubbites were estimating less than 100 billion for the cost of the war before it started, and that Iraq's oil would pay for the war. Both predictions proved false.
Let's stop right there. I'll read the rest later. I thought at one point you said the war was all about the oil and the Shrubbies and Halliburton were going to steal it all for their selfish gang. So what gives?. What story do you want to go with here?
 
97silverlsc said:
Sure about that? I'd be willing to bet they came from all those munitions dumps we failed to secure at the beginning of the war because we didn't have enough troops in country. The ones you guys poo-pooed the importance of when the issue was brought up, remember?
Sorry, these are a new breed of munitions. Armor piercing. They make personnel and Humvee reinforcements worthless. The markings are showing Iranian and Syrian origination. Sorry, can't go into more detail at this point, busy getting ready to go to war with Iran. Have to figure out how to make Syria an accomplice so we get a 2 for 1 deal. ;)
 
MonsterMark said:
Let's stop right there. I'll read the rest later. I thought at one point you said the war was all about the oil and the Shrubbies and Halliburton were going to steal it all for their selfish gang. So what gives?. What story do you want to go with here?

Could ask you the same thing-- It's ties to 9/11, no wait it's WMDs, no wait it's yellow cake, oops no it's to give democracy, ummm........

point is, what they said and what their intentions were were 2 different things, still believe it today and you haven't proved otherwise. Seems like they would say anything to sell their war and everyday that's shown to be true more and more.
 
97silverlsc said:
Could ask you the same thing-- It's ties to 9/11, no wait it's WMDs, no wait it's yellow cake, oops no it's to give democracy, ummm........

point is, what they said and what their intentions were were 2 different things, still believe it today and you haven't proved otherwise. Seems like they would say anything to sell their war and everyday that's shown to be true more and more.

Where IS all this oil we're supposedly stealing from Iraq? And why haven't gas prices gone down? Come on, conspiracy theorist, explain it to me.
 
fossten said:
Where IS all this oil we're supposedly stealing from Iraq? And why haven't gas prices gone down? Come on, conspiracy theorist, explain it to me.

You read / watch the news, you know the answer genius. The Iraqi oil output has been hampered by the insurgent attacks. Once again, another plan poorly executed by the BuSh administration, that should make you proud of your boy.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You read / watch the news, you know the answer genius. The Iraqi oil output has been hampered by the insurgent attacks. Once again, another plan poorly executed by the BuSh administration, that should make you proud of your boy.

I see. So your explanation is that Bush's PLAN to steal the oil, which you can't document, is being attacked by the TERRORISTS (what you call insurgents), and that proves POOR PLANNING?

Dude, you sound really confused.
 
David,

I don't see where he claimed that we were stealing their oil. You made that up.

Do you really think that the war and its aftermath were well planned? I don't.
 
barry2952 said:
David,

I don't see where he claimed that we were stealing their oil. You made that up.

Do you really think that the war and its aftermath were well planned? I don't.

I didn't make that up. It's one of the cornerstones of the overall fiberal rhetoric, and Johnny acknowledged it by his answer.

In answer to your question, I think that anytime you go to war, things will happen that aren't anticipated. Look at WWII as an example. Need I remind you of the Battle of the Bulge, where we lost 40,000 troops in one month?

You can't plan for everything because you can't predict the future. Things go wrong, usually because IT'S WAR. The enemy is trying to frustrate and kill you, and there is no perfect outcome. What amazes me is how the left of this country has forgotten that. You people act like just because some things have not gone as well as expected, Bush should be impeached. Ridiculous. What we HAVE done well is ADJUST to the enemy's tactics and continued to keep up the pressure.

This is one of the most bloodless wars we've ever fought, and as clearly indicated by the video released by bin Laden where he's practically begging us to sign a truce with him, WE'RE WINNING. I know that sticks in your liberal craw because you operate through the prism of "George Bush sucks," and you'd love to see us lose the war so it would help your liberal leaders politically, but the bottom line is that we will win this war (much to your disappointment), and Bush will be shown to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had.
 
fossten said:
I see. So your explanation is that Bush's PLAN to steal the oil, which you can't document, is being attacked by the TERRORISTS (what you call insurgents), and that proves POOR PLANNING?

Dude, you sound really confused.

Uh........ NO. YOU are the one who inferred that BuSh's plan was to steal the oil, not I, nor Phil. FACT is that a fellow who was part of the BuSh administration (can't remember the moron's name OTOMH) claimed that Iraqi's oil would help pay for the war (again, no implication about stealing it........ that's only your active imagination playing tricks on you). Therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN the BUSH ADMINISTRATION's PLAN to beg/borrow/barter rebuilding Iraq for their oil........... which has YET to come to fruition! THAT my friend is just ANOTHER example of POOR PLANNING on the part of the BuSh admin.

I only sound confused to you, oh lacker of reading comprehension skills.
 
And there you RWWs go again, when backed into a corner, you resort to a feeble comparision of the Iraq war with WWII. That's like comparing ants to elephants. FEEBLE and irrelevant.
 
I'd say he's right. You seem to have made up his purported statement. Bad form David.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Uh........ NO. YOU are the one who inferred that BuSh's plan was to steal the oil, not I, nor Phil. FACT is that a fellow who was part of the BuSh administration (can't remeat Iraqi's oil would help pay for the war (again, no implication about stealing it........ that's only your active imagination playing tricks on you). Therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN the BUSH ADMINISTRATION's PLAN to beg/borrow/barter rebuilding Iraq for their oil........... which has YET to come to fruition! THAT my friend is just ANOTHER example of POOR PLANNING on the part of the BuSh admin.

I only sound confused to you, oh lacker of reading comprehension skills.

Wolfowitz was 1 of the people making the claim about Iraq oil paying for the war and reconstruction, he's in charge of the world bank now(uh-oh).
 
barry2952 said:
I don't see where he claimed that we were stealing their oil. You made that up.
The whole liberal mantra is that the iraq war was a war for oil and we were going to take [read~steal] all their oil and give [read~free] to Bush's buddies. There is page after page of this crocmk located on this site, much less the thousands upon thousands of pages on the web detailing that very same argument from the Left. Granted, most of the foaming came from the moonbat crowd on the Left, but it was the Left regardless.
 
Are we talking about what Johhny was thinking or what was actually said. That seems to be the problem. I didn't know the RW could read people's minds. Why wiretap?
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
And there you RWWs go again, when backed into a corner, you resort to a feeble comparision of the Iraq war with WWII. That's like comparing ants to elephants. FEEBLE and irrelevant.

Thank you for making my point for me. I was actually contrasting the two wars, not comparing them.

A little confused, Johnny?
 
fossten said:
In answer to your question, I think that anytime you go to war, things will happen that aren't anticipated. Look at WWII as an example.............


Wrong again genius, THAT is a comparison. Keep lying to yourself, soon those little voices only you hear will start to agree with you.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Wrong again genius, THAT is a comparison. Keep lying to yourself, soon those little voices only you hear will start to agree with you.

It's true that I was using WWII as an EXAMPLE of how things go wrong in war, but you're the one who said it's not a comparison. So according to your twisted logic, if a Democratic President has things go wrong in war, it's not his fault, but if a Republican President has things go wrong in war, it's not only his fault, but he caused it deliberately?

Get a clue.
 
fossten said:
It's true that I was using WWII as an EXAMPLE of how things go wrong in war, but you're the one who said it's not a comparison. So according to your twisted logic, if a Democratic President has things go wrong in war, it's not his fault, but if a Republican President has things go wrong in war, it's not only his fault, but he caused it deliberately?

Get a clue.

YOU were making the comparison of Iraq to WWII. I said that they are not comparable (Iraq, where the US was the one doing the invasion of Iraqi soil, cannot be compared to WWII, where initially the US was an ally to France in defending them from the German invaders, and then we became directly involved by being attacked by the Japanese........ not to mention the huge difference in the scopes of the two wars, army size of the combatants, etc). Big, HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference. Yet you RWWs love to compare Iraq to WWII in a feeble attempt to justify Iraq.

WEAK.

And BTW, WHERE did I ever attempt to place "blame" for either war's misfortune? You are letting the voices in your head lead you down dark alleys.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
YOU were making the comparison of Iraq to WWII. I said that they are not comparable (Iraq, where the US was the one doing the invasion of Iraqi soil, cannot be compared to WWII, where initially the US was an ally to France in defending them from the German invaders, and then we became directly involved by being attacked by the Japanese........ not to mention the huge difference in the scopes of the two wars, army size of the combatants, etc). Big, HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference. Yet you RWWs love to compare Iraq to WWII in a feeble attempt to justify Iraq.

WEAK.

And BTW, WHERE did I ever attempt to place "blame" for either war's misfortune? You are letting the voices in your head lead you down dark alleys.


Sorry, your feeble twisting just won't wash. You are inventing a comparison that I DID NOT MAKE. I was comparing how things go wrong in war. Everything you just claimed I said about WWII was totally made up. I never said any of that in this thread. Nice try with your usual flash/distract tactics. Why don't you try addressing the ACTUAL TOPIC for a change? Then you might even start looking like you possess some bits of intelligence.

Hey, barry, what about BAD FORM FOR JOHNNY? Hypocrite.
 
fossten said:
I was comparing how things go wrong in war.

FINALLY, you admit your mistake!

fossten said:
Thank you for making my point for me. I was actually contrasting the two wars, not comparing them.

Nice back-peddaling. Apology accepted.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top