Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (126821)	7/22/2005 11:10:19 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793682

<Did you see Roubini's and Stetser's response to the article you cited?> No, thanks for the link. Don't have time to counter it in detail, just one point: <In relative terms, the budget deficit is about 6% of GDP which is huge.> The projected 2005 deficit is 2.7%. White House hacks projected budget deficit down to $333B July 13, 2005 usatoday.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (126821)	7/22/2005 4:11:44 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793682

C2, you said: In relative terms, the budget deficit is about 6% of GDP which is huge. The facts are that the latest estimate of 2005 GDP by the CBO is $12.233 trillion. The latest CBO estimate for the 2005 (ending 9/30/2005) fiscal year budget deficit is max $350 billion, possibly as little as $325 billion. At 350, the deficit would be 2.86% of GDP, not 6%. cbo.gov I understand all of your other economic arguments (from later posts) about why, the one-time repatriation of dollars, tax cuts not permanent, etc. I don't agree with them, but I understand them. But if you insist on posting economic scare-tactics posts about the disaster facing our economy because of the Bush tax cuts, at least use correct data. Your use of statistics that are off by more than a factor of 2 does a disservice to your credibility and to your arguments.