Re: Democrats destroying America ...

In article <suOdnalxW6vPhrbbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
George Cook wrote:
In article <KsOdnY9oQacn5LTbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

...

I've already proved (using the OMB figures that you don't appear to
dispute) that many of yours were.

You proved nothing of the sort. You gave figures which supported my point,
while claiming they didn't because they came from the OMB and therefore
were bogus.

That pretty well settles it: you're either an out-right moron or a
bald-faced liar. Given your political bent, quite possibly both.

1. You claimed "the US government's budget deficit is actually rapidly
falling" and then again "The annual budget deficit is rapidly falling".
My response (which I guess I should repeat, since your reading
comprehension appears to be as incompetent as much of the rest of your
cognitive ability) observed that a) the OMB deficit figures up through
last year *did not support that assertion at all* (the observed deficit
was bouncing around the $300+ to $400+ billion range with *no* clear
downward trend), b) the OMB *projection* last year was that the next
year's deficit would again exceed $400 billion (i.e., that projection
for the present did not support your assertion about the present
either), and c) that this projection just one year ago was so far out of
line with the alleged actual 2006 deficit that either someone was
playing fast and loose with the 2006 numbers (understating the actual
deficit) or there was little reason to expect this year's future
projections to be any more reliable than last year's projection was.
Either way, your claim was hardly solid.

Perhaps you are legitimately confused about what the meaning of the word
'is' is. When you say (and even then repeat) "the US government's
budget deficit *is* actually rapidly falling", that is *not at all* the
same thing as saying "the US government's budget deficit is *projected*
to fall rapidly": the former is a assertion of *current fact* and must
be justified by *current measurements* (rather than 'projections'), and
that was most of the objection that I raised to it.

No, I am not the least bit confused. The deficit is (as in 'is' meaning
'is') falling rapidly. You are the one who refuses to believe the OMB,
so let us try a more "reliable" source, the CBO.

CBO deficit projections (2005 and 2006 actual) thru 2017:

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
-318 -248 -172 -98 -116 -137 -12 170 159 185 208 192 249

It 'is' as in 'is' actually lower and falling even more rapidly than I
thought. Ben Bernanke, in testimony before Congress earlier this year,
agreed the 2005-2007 figures are accurate.


George Cook
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... I've already proved (using the OMB figures that you don't appear to ... You claimed "the US government's budget deficit is actually rapidly falling" and then again "The annual budget deficit is rapidly falling". ... My response observed that a) the OMB deficit figures up through last year *did not support that assertion at all*, b) the OMB *projection* last year was that the next year's deficit would again exceed $400 billion, and c) that this projection just one year ago was so far out of line with the alleged actual 2006 deficit that either someone was playing fast and loose with the 2006 numbers or there was little reason to expect this year's future projections to be any more reliable than last year's projection was. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... You claimed "the US government's budget deficit is actually rapidly falling" and then again "The annual budget deficit is rapidly falling". ... My response observed that a) the OMB deficit figures up through last year *did not support that assertion at all*, b) the OMB *projection* last year was that the next year's deficit would again exceed $400 billion, and c) that this projection just one year ago was so far out of line with the alleged actual 2006 deficit that either someone was playing fast and loose with the 2006 numbers or there was little reason to expect this year's future projections to be any more reliable than last year's projection was. ... You bloviated "The budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is not a major concern" to which I simply responded "Horseshit", as my later examination of your comments regarding the national debt should have made clear. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Now you owe $55,491
    ... Obama adjusts his budget projection so that it aligns more closely with reality. ... If we had abided by this approach during the previous Administration, the projected 10-year deficit would be $5 trillion smaller. ... with the Obama administration the buck stops at the previous administration. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Now you owe $55,491
    ... Obama administration blames the Bush administration for huge deficits ... Obama adjusts his budget projection so that it aligns more closely with ... the projected 10-year deficit ... with the Obama administration the buck stops at the previous ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... liberal controlled Congress, to be under $200 billion by 2009. ... The same OMB figures for FY2008 changed as follows: ... 2007 $244 billion estimated deficit ...
    (comp.os.vms)