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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (252925)	1/3/2008 5:31:15 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

Nadine, if you keep two sets of books and play with the numbers, and leaving out of the budget the Iraq's war, it is guaranteed to have a deficit reduction. breitbart.com Bush's spending blueprint was based on unrealistic assumptions and left out major spending items such as the full costs of the Iraq war. usatoday.com The federal government keeps two sets of books. The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005. The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion. federalbudget.com treasurydirect.gov

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (252925)	1/3/2008 9:20:19 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, the national debt has increased on the Bush watch from 5 trillion to 9 trillion. cedarcomm.com Still full of crap..

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (252925)	1/3/2008 10:41:53 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<But I don't blame you if you haven't heard these numbers. They haven't exactly made the headlines. They are true, nonetheless>> I actually have heard these numbers but I obviously view them with different colored glasses than you do. Reducing the deficit (which is a good thing) just means we're adding less to the Debt this year than we did last year. Guess what -- we're still adding to the Debt. Its like if I run up my credit card to $50k but then I start to pay back more than I charge on it. After the 4th year the principal is at say $30k and then down to $25k by the fifth year. I can point out how that's a $5k reduction in my deficit but again, guess what -- I still owe $25k and a bunch more interest to boot. If I ever do pay down the balance, it will have cost me a lot more than $50k to do it. If you take the credit card analogy further to compare this and the previous administration -- I was actually given that credit card in 2000 with a $25k credit on it.