What about this Ron Paul fellow??????

I had time to find one link from the Washington Post. It is from 2005. There have been quite a few stories just this year about record tax revenue. I will try to dig them up after work, but they should be pretty easy for anyone to find.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071301617.html

 

As of 2006 we were spending more than we took in, with only 2001 the only year of no such spending in this century. (corrected my previous error)

Spent 1999 1,702.0 Income 1,827.6 no deficit
2000 1,789.2 ................. 2,025.5 deficit
2001 1,863.2 ................. 1,991.4 no deficit
2002 2,011.2 ................. 1,853.4 deficit
2003 2,160.1 ................. 1,782.5 deficit
2004 2,293.0 ................. 1,880.3 deficit
2005 2,472.2 ................. 2,153.9 deficit
2006 2,655.4 ................. 2,407.3 deficit

in Billions of dollars

 

This means they did not overspend as much in this fiscal year as they expected, but they still spent $333 billion more than they took in at this point. This is the yearly budget deficit not the cumulative deficit.

The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year, from $412 billion in 2004, as a surge of unanticipated tax receipts pushes the red ink significantly below levels projected just five months ago, White House officials said yesterday

 

If and when typing accuracy ever becomes a spelling problem come back and talk to us.

 

Absolutely we have to cut spending drastically. I know we can cut our spending by 75% and still give the taxpayer 30% the back. The remaining 45% windfall gets applied to the retirement of the national debt.

I don't care what party you are we have allowed our federal government to become too strong and powerful. Cut the head off the snake.

I value greatly the genius of Thomas Jefferson. Time to give the rights back to the people and not the agents that have put us in such a precarious mess. We do not need to worry about terrorists attacking, as we are killing the United States of America quite well by ourselves. We either try and fix it or suffer the consequences.

 

hmmmm...... seems to lead credence to our failed foreign policy. Both parties are guilty of that policy. Wonder which candidate voted against the war? Oh yeah the guy that the thread is about.

 

The link that Wayne provided earlier in this thread gives all that information, from an official source. The total deficit for 2005 actually ended up being even less than the newspaper article predicted, the final figure from OMB is 318.3. Bear in mind, that figure factors in a Social Security surplus of 173.5 and a Postal Service surplus of 1.8 billions. The "on-budget" deficit was 493.6 billion in 2005.

Bear in mind that many of the news stories compare projected deficits to actual deficits to arrive at the conclusion that deficits are being reduced. If you over-estimate expenses, then when the bills come in for less it's easy to think you are saving money, but are you?

Bear in mind also that this administration took office with a budget not only in balance, but an actual surplus, which could have gone toward reducing the national debt; and a system for keeping the budget in balance, a system that was worked out through bi-partisan co-operation. So the fact that we overspent by "only" 318 billion dollars instead of 412 billion like the year before is not really cause for celebration.

 

You are obviously in denial. It's a common reaction to a problem such as yours, but acceptance is the first step to recovery. If you truly don't have an LD problem, then I can only assume that you are a lazy, uneducated loser. Unfortunately, there is no cure for that.

 

Wayne's post was flawed, making it invalid. Your acceptance of it as fact makes your point even less valid. I would suggest you look into local nursing homes.

 

psssst! Ignore the bloviating fool.

 

Am I included in that or can I expect a response to my last two responses?

 

No, not at all! (to the first part of your question). Yes, I will respond to your last two responses, but a little bit later. Even though I am retired, I do have volunteer work that I have promised, so I need to get to work on it for a while. I can't resist looking in every once in a while, but a thoughtful response will take more than a minute or two. Catch you later!

Pat

 

Just quickly - I have to agree with you on this one. :shock:

The one before that, later!

 

Look forward to it...here is more food for thought on how our government (Democrat and Republican) have lost it.
$592 million for an Embassy in Iraq that includes 20 building, two residences , and has the potential to house over 380 families. They can not even keep the drawings of it off the internet.

There should have been outrage on both sides of the isle. Again one voice of reason about Peace in the Middle East!

 

I'm not sure why you're keeping on about this. You know as well as I that a person, when they cannot defend their own position, will make personal attacks. It's obvious that Master_Shake has no more left to say on the subject at hand, and so is resorting to typical forum troll behavior.

Walk away. Simply walk away.

 

Then he might be upset because we have no sympathy or empathy or any of those other big words he does not seem to understand. :lol: :lol:

When one has to resort to name calling one has already lost the debate ... and beating up on an unarmed opponent in a war of wits is never fun.

For the educationally challenged who may think this was some kind of compliment: :-D

blo·vi·ate(blv-t)
intr.v. blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·ates Slang
To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: "the rural Babbitt who bloviates about 'progress' and 'growth'" George Rebeck.

 

I can agree to the guilt of both parties and a failure of foreign policy, but the position Ron Paul takes is not good either. We do have to maintain our position as the leaders of the free world to promote that freedom to all. I even supported the Afghanistan incursion because I felt (still do) it was the proper response. Iraq, however, was not even connected.

 

Which position are we referring to? The one where if we go to war have Congress formally declare war or non interventionism that our founding fathers advocated.

Sound policy to me.

Why is it our job to be the leaders of the free world. Let us take care of the United States of America first. When we perfect "freedom to all" then we can worry about every one else, but be careful because people that live in glass houses should not throw rocks. No matter what party you support we should not send troops in harms way without the proper declaration of war by Congress and our security or liberties are being threatened.

 

Both, actually. The nature of warfare has changed significantly as has the definition of war. We have not fought in a declared war for quite some time yet we have seen a bit of combat. As for the non-interventionism, that is a definite problem. If we had followed that path we would not have joined the Allies in WWII and could now be isolated or worse now. We cannot ignore things such as the Holocaust or nuclear proliferation as by the time it affects us it is probably too late.

Either that or we find out the rest of the world has isolated us and we cannot recover.

So we should only send troops when there is a nation with which to declare war? The Barbary Pirates should have been ignored? No limited response at all?

 

For example, after 9/11 upon whom would we have declared war? The people who attacked us were not a sovereign entity.