That's the projected 2009 Budget Year Deficit per the White House

Quote :

" WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year, a senior government official told CNN. The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit. The deficit would amount to roughly 3.5 percent of the nation's $14 trillion economy. The official pointed to a faltering economy and the bipartisan $170 billion stimulus package that passed earlier this year for the record deficit. The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008. The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak publicly ahead of an official briefing later Monday by Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle. President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year. The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy. But the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from President Bill Clinton. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in March projected the deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends September 30, would be $396 billion. It predicted the 2009 deficit to be $342 billion, if the president's proposals were adopted."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

$1,608 per every citizen of the USA

7/28/2008 12:28:21 PM

put it on my tab

7/28/2008 12:30:03 PM

Wow, our government borrows almost as much money each year as we spend on oil.

7/28/2008 12:43:23 PM

I just can't wait until we get a Republican in office to veto all this overspending.


Let's face it-- Bush's fiscal irresponsibility destroyed the only rational reason for supporting Republicans.

7/28/2008 12:45:17 PM

have you not been paying attention to the last 28 years?

deficit spending is the mainstay of the reagan era and post reagan era republicans

Quote :

"Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter" Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired. The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration. Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004 "

personally, I think they take a broad view, economically, on spending policy

I do think they are poking the paper tiger however.

[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2008 12:51:54 PM

Quote :

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due."

Jeeeez

Deficits don't matter [in regards to getting reelected-- eff the economy]

7/28/2008 1:03:24 PM

republicans care more about placating the public then democrats

that's why they're the more successful party

7/28/2008 1:13:09 PM

My question is how the next administration will bring it all under control. Given how much both candidates have promised, whether in tax cuts or new government spending, the gap is so big that even if Iraq and Afghanistan magically ended tomorrow, its no where near enough to make up the gap.

7/28/2008 1:47:46 PM

there needs to be a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget

at the state level it exists, it needs to at the federal level

7/28/2008 2:07:23 PM

but is a balanced budget fiscally possible on a federal level?

7/28/2008 2:08:00 PM

it has to be or the system is fundamentally flawed

7/28/2008 2:10:49 PM

Quote :

"deficit spending is the mainstay of the reagan era and post reagan era republicans"

Do remind me, of these eras, which branch of government holds the power of the purse? And who has controlled said branch?

Oh, right. Both parties. And the only time we saw any kind of sharp reduction in deficit spending was in a time of acrimoniously divided government.

Hey, come to think of it, maybe gridlock is a good thing.

7/28/2008 2:37:00 PM

^^ Yes. Why would it not be? The Federal Reserve is perfectly capable of managing consumer demand.

7/28/2008 2:40:14 PM

^^ Thats what I've been saying. I would love Obama as President as long as he doesn't have a Democrat majority in congress to empower him in his massive spending proposals.

Maybe history repeats itself, and Obama loses his majority in the 2010 midterm elections ALA Bill Clinton in '94. It worked out pretty well last time.

7/29/2008 12:44:07 AM

Quote :

"The Federal Reserve is perfectly capable of managing consumer demand."

Huh?

The value of our dollar has dropped over 95% since the Fed started managing it.

Professor of Finance Michael Rozoff writes:

Quote :

"The damage to bank assets is system-wide. If the lion’s share of the banks and other lenders have made bad loans or made loans that have gone bad, then the amounts become unmanageably large for taxpayers and their government to handle. There is, in fact, no action that government can devise that will not make the situation worse. Bailouts are bad. Nationalization is bad. Inflation is bad. A loss in confidence in the system is justified because the system is faulty to begin with. There is nothing for it but to end legal tender laws and go to fully free markets in banking and money. There is no need to legislate that gold, silver, or anything else serve as money. People acting in free markets can decide that on their own. The answer is free banking. "

7/29/2008 1:45:16 AM