bethany

Thank you George Bush and all who supported him.

Thank you George Bush and all who supported him.

The White House says the slowdown in the economy is chiefly responsible for a big jump in next year's budget deficit.

It also predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and rebound at a greater than 2 percent rate next year.

Bush's successor will inherit a deficit that's likely to exceed a half-trillion dollars once war costs are factored in. This year's deficit will tally $389 billion. That's way up from $162 billion last year.

The new figures are so eye-popping that the next president may face pressure to take action instead of adding to it with expensive spending programs as promised by Democrat Barack Obama or new tax cuts pledged by Republican John McCain.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate.

A Bush administration official said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. A $482 billion deficit approaching billion would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

Government officials confirmed the $482 billion figure Monday on condition of anonymity because the new estimate had not been formally released. Administration officials were scheduled to do that at a news conference later in the day.

The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition and in violation of new mandates from Congress the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the new deficit number. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.

"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.

In fact, the White House had included cost estimates for an economic stimulus bill in its earlier projections, so the new figures represent a considerable deterioration in the government's fiscal health.

The White House had predicted in February that next year's deficit at $407 billion, which puts the increase in the projections since at $72 billion.

Figures for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 will actually drop from an earlier projection of $410 billion to $389 billion, the officials said.

The numbers represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the deficit measure seen as most relevant by economists. That's considerably smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress and earlier administrations cobbled together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to it with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.

The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.

That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the $490 billion figure confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."

The figures to be released later will paint a picture of the financial health of the government that President Bush's successor will inherit, as well as updated predictions of the health of the economy.

White House budget director Jim Nussle and Edward Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, were scheduled to release the administration's updated forecasts at an early afternoon news conference.

    <p>The White House says the slowdown in the economy is chiefly responsible for a big jump in next year's budget deficit.</p>

It also predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and rebound at a greater than 2 percent rate next year.

Bush's successor will inherit a deficit that's likely to exceed a half-trillion dollars once war costs are factored in. This year's deficit will tally $389 billion. That's way up from $162 billion last year.

The new figures are so eye-popping that the next president may face pressure to take action instead of adding to it with expensive spending programs as promised by Democrat Barack Obama or new tax cuts pledged by Republican John McCain.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate.

A Bush administration official said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. A $482 billion deficit approaching billion would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

Government officials confirmed the $482 billion figure Monday on condition of anonymity because the new estimate had not been formally released. Administration officials were scheduled to do that at a news conference later in the day.

The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition and in violation of new mandates from Congress the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the new deficit number. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.

"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.

In fact, the White House had included cost estimates for an economic stimulus bill in its earlier projections, so the new figures represent a considerable deterioration in the government's fiscal health.

The White House had predicted in February that next year's deficit at $407 billion, which puts the increase in the projections since at $72 billion.

Figures for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 will actually drop from an earlier projection of $410 billion to $389 billion, the officials said.

The numbers represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the deficit measure seen as most relevant by economists. That's considerably smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress and earlier administrations cobbled together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to it with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.

The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.

That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the $490 billion figure confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."

The figures to be released later will paint a picture of the financial health of the government that President Bush's successor will inherit, as well as updated predictions of the health of the economy.

White House budget director Jim Nussle and Edward Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, were scheduled to release the administration's updated forecasts at an early afternoon news conference.

    <br class="clear-both"/>

I live in the Bay Area. Sure, illegal immigrants may be one source of crime and deporting all illegal immigrants would be one solution. But most crime in the Bay, especially violent crime, is a direct result of poverty. In fact, I recently browsed through a new study by Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, which finds that rising immigration rates in communities do not result in rising crime rates. There is actually a negative correlation between immigrants, legal or otherwise, and crime. So, I would rather see lawmakers address poverty before spending the time and resources on immigration at this point, especially since a good portion of our citizens in the bay live below the poverty line. Everyone wins. Does that mean San Francisco's sanctuary law isn't flawed? Not necessarily. By the way, brilliant response HopeNation.

I live in the Bay Area. Sure, illegal immigrants may be one source of crime and deporting all illegal immigrants would be one solution. But most crime in the Bay, especially violent crime, is a direct result of poverty. In fact, I recently browsed through a new study by Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, which finds that rising immigration rates in communities do not result in rising crime rates. There is actually a negative correlation between immigrants, legal or otherwise, and crime. So, I would rather see lawmakers address poverty before spending the time and resources on immigration at this point, especially since a good portion of our citizens in the bay live below the poverty line. Everyone wins. Does that mean San Francisco's sanctuary law isn't flawed? Not necessarily.

By the way, brilliant response HopeNation.

I think the Democrats could run a potato and the world would be excited about it, as long as it didn't in any way resemble Bush.... But yeah, what an amazing turnout. I take it McCain will be avoiding Germany during his campaign.

I think the Democrats could run a potato and the world would be excited about it, as long as it didn't in any way resemble Bush.... But yeah, what an amazing turnout. I take it McCain will be avoiding Germany during his campaign.

How are you making the connection between a decision made my the SF city council in 1989 and Barack Obama?

How are you making the connection between a decision made my the SF city council in 1989 and Barack Obama?

I should mention that I, the moderator, haven't blocked any users from the site yet! So please, let your conservatism run wild. Just be respectful!

I should mention that I, the moderator, haven't blocked any users from the site yet! So please, let your conservatism run wild. Just be respectful!

Honestly, I was disappointed he opted for that logo over this one. But seriously, chill. Who cares about icon on the plane? It's still patriotic. You've got your red, white, blue, stripes, etc. US popularity abroad is embarrassingly low. Unpopularity of the Bush administration overseas has made it difficult for foreign leaders to cooperate with US on a range of issues. I've encountered a lot of negativity on several continents as a traveler as well. I feel it's reasonable a candidate, especially one running on a platform of "change", would want to switch out the symbol that is so widely associated with anger and resentment for something representing a change of course and cooperation. Plus, the world loves Obama. They want to know when he's coming.

Honestly, I was disappointed he opted for that logo over this one.

But seriously, chill. Who cares about icon on the plane? It's still patriotic. You've got your red, white, blue, stripes, etc.

US popularity abroad is embarrassingly low. Unpopularity of the Bush administration overseas has made it difficult for foreign leaders to cooperate with US on a range of issues. I've encountered a lot of negativity on several continents as a traveler as well. I feel it's reasonable a candidate, especially one running on a platform of "change", would want to switch out the symbol that is so widely associated with anger and resentment for something representing a change of course and cooperation. Plus, the world loves Obama. They want to know when he's coming.

That's the problem dpkell- there ARE NO articles about McCain's (lack of) lapel pin. Just google search "obama lapel pin" and "mccain lapel pin". Discover the bias. Now, about this statement... niceday21 says:

"I also agree that the Left wing on this website is stupidly intolerant of differing viewpoints. If you are not with Obama, youre against him. Moderates, Libertarians, Independents, Conservatives....we are all bundled together under `´Right-Wing Conspiracy´´."

This is ridiculous. I want you to realize that this type of accusatory rhetoric is totally unhelpful, not to mention inaccurate! I seriously doubt there are very many people in this country with the mentality you described. When you victimize yourself in that way, you end up feeding the "liberal-conservative" divide that is plaguing the country. Besides, who says 'if you're not with Obama you're against him?' Show us the evidence here. There are a lot of users, including Mark himself, who aren't 100% on board with everything Obama is pushing. There is a spectrum of support for Obama. I plan to vote for him, but I'm horrified by his trade policies, disappointed by his health care solutions, terrified by his plans to expand production of biofuels, and disgusted by the idea of expanding the role of faith-based organizations. I think he is more competent and much more genuine than McCain. I agree with more of his proposals than McCain's, even if I'm not thrilled about all of them. Given our choices, I think Obama is what this country needs in terms of policy changes and ending the white hegemony in leadership. As far as the "liberal bias" on this site- it's true. Our paid blogger, Mark, is an Obama supporting Democrat. Bloggers usually come with opinions and not everyone is going to agree. That doesn't mean we exclude conservatives, moderates, and libertarians. We encourage everyone to contribute and participate. Ways to represent your moderate/independent/conservative views: 1. start blogging (every users get's a blog) 2. post on forums 3. edit pages 4. submit new pages 5. comment on Mark's blog 6. comment on other users' blogs. 7. get your moderate/independent/conservative friends to join the discussions

That's the problem dpkell- there ARE NO articles about McCain's (lack of) lapel pin. Just google search "obama lapel pin" and "mccain lapel pin". Discover the bias.

Now, about this statement...

niceday21 says:

"I also agree that the Left wing on this website is stupidly intolerant of differing viewpoints. If you are not with Obama, youre against him. Moderates, Libertarians, Independents, Conservatives....we are all bundled together under `´Right-Wing Conspiracy´´."

This is ridiculous. I want you to realize that this type of accusatory rhetoric is totally unhelpful, not to mention inaccurate! I seriously doubt there are very many people in this country with the mentality you described. When you victimize yourself in that way, you end up feeding the "liberal-conservative" divide that is plaguing the country.

Besides, who says 'if you're not with Obama you're against him?' Show us the evidence here. There are a lot of users, including Mark himself, who aren't 100% on board with everything Obama is pushing. There is a spectrum of support for Obama. I plan to vote for him, but I'm horrified by his trade policies, disappointed by his health care solutions, terrified by his plans to expand production of biofuels, and disgusted by the idea of expanding the role of faith-based organizations. I think he is more competent and much more genuine than McCain. I agree with more of his proposals than McCain's, even if I'm not thrilled about all of them. Given our choices, I think Obama is what this country needs in terms of policy changes and ending the white hegemony in leadership.

As far as the "liberal bias" on this site- it's true. Our paid blogger, Mark, is an Obama supporting Democrat. Bloggers usually come with opinions and not everyone is going to agree. That doesn't mean we exclude conservatives, moderates, and libertarians. We encourage everyone to contribute and participate.

Ways to represent your moderate/independent/conservative views: 1. start blogging (every users get's a blog) 2. post on forums 3. edit pages 4. submit new pages 5. comment on Mark's blog 6. comment on other users' blogs. 7. get your moderate/independent/conservative friends to join the discussions

This is shocking. For everyone who is blinded by patriotism, or for those of you who have derided the "Democratic agenda" as a push towards socialism, take a look at this report. Here are some figures:

-Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty
-Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers
-25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international math test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan
-If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life

"The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country."

I would like to slap the next person upside the head with this report who tries to argue that American capitalism is superior to European socialism.

On Tuesday during a Senate Banking committee meeting, Sen. Jim Bunning expressed his opposition to mortgage lender bailout legislation by saying, "When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France. But, no, it turned out it was socialism here in the United States and very -- going well." (Washington Post)

The credit crunch didn't start in France; French people aren't scrambling under a wave of foreclosures; the French aren't slipping in the development index; and children in France aren't dying at the rates they are in the US because of poverty. France has its fair share of problems, but I'm sick of this ancient, Cold War mentality. Such ignorance.

 

This is shocking. For everyone who is blinded by patriotism, or for those of you who have derided the "Democratic agenda" as a push towards socialism, take a look at this report. Here are some figures:

-Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty
-Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers
-25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international math test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan
-If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life

"The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country."

I would like to slap the next person upside the head with this report who tries to argue that American capitalism is superior to European socialism.

On Tuesday during a Senate Banking committee meeting, Sen. Jim Bunning expressed his opposition to mortgage lender bailout legislation by saying, "When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France. But, no, it turned out it was socialism here in the United States and very -- going well." (Washington Post)

The credit crunch didn't start in France; French people aren't scrambling under a wave of foreclosures; the French aren't slipping in the development index; and children in France aren't dying at the rates they are in the US because of poverty. France has its fair share of problems, but I'm sick of this ancient, Cold War mentality. Such ignorance.

 

Good for McCain. But you can't just opt-out of the public system because it's failing. If it's falling short of expectations, it needs to be fixed.

Good for McCain. But you can't just opt-out of the public system because it's failing. If it's falling short of expectations, it needs to be fixed.

John McCain is telling the NAACP he will expand education opportunities for children in failing schools, including vouchers for children to attend private school.

The likely Republican presidential nominee is speaking Wednesday at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation's oldest civil rights organization.

In greeting the group, McCain praised Democrat Barack Obama's historic campaign, but said the Illinois senator is wrong to oppose school vouchers for students in failing public schools. It is time, McCain says, to use vouchers and other tools like merit pay for teachers to break from conventional thinking on educational policy.

            <div class="special-box" style="width:270px;">
        <div style="border:solid 1px #CCC">
            <div class="ta-c p-10" style="background:#FFF;border-bottom:solid 1px #CCC">
                                    <a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/news/mccain-pledging-to-naacp-more-education-options/104411/photos/&imageId=21017">
                    <img src="http://image.politicalbase.com/uploads/people/4000/3047/852925df-64ae-437d-9913-dcf9e77c891a_240.jpg" style="border:solid 3px #CCC;"/>
                </a>                                        <br/>
                    <div class="ta-l p-8" style="border:solid 1px #DDD;">
                        <span class="strong">John McCain</span><br/>                            <span class="dgray f-10">Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., greets patrons as he makes a campaign stop at Ted Drewes, a local custard shop, in  St. Louis, Tuesday, July 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)</span>
                    </div>
                                            <table class="list">
                        <tr>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/">Biography</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/issues/">Issues</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/money/">Fund Raising</a></td>
                        </tr>
                        <tr>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/rivals/">Rivals</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/supporters/">Supporters</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/affiliations/">Affiliations</a></td>
                        </tr>
                        <tr>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/photos/">Photos</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/videos/">Videos</a></td>
                            <td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/forums/">Forums</a></td>
                        </tr>
                    </table>
                                                        </div>      
        </div>
    </div>

    <p><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/john-mccain/3047/">John McCain</a> is telling the NAACP he will expand education opportunities for children in failing schools, including vouchers for children to attend private school.</p>

The likely Republican presidential nominee is speaking Wednesday at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation's oldest civil rights organization.

In greeting the group, McCain praised Democrat Barack Obama's historic campaign, but said the Illinois senator is wrong to oppose school vouchers for students in failing public schools. It is time, McCain says, to use vouchers and other tools like merit pay for teachers to break from conventional thinking on educational policy.

    <br class="clear-both"/>

Kind of: http://abdp.users.50megs.com/

Kind of: http://abdp.users.50megs.com/

How about the Karl Rove's idea to a rumor in South Carolina during the 2000 primaries that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. The child was actually his adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

How about the Karl Rove's idea to a rumor in South Carolina during the 2000 primaries that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. The child was actually his adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

I don't think there is any way you can argue against the European systems that are clearly serving the needs of their populations with half the cost and better care. One might argue that universal care is contributing to budget deficits and some countries are introducing co-payment systems and private insurance along side public systems. But they still beat the US.

I don't think there is any way you can argue against the European systems that are clearly serving the needs of their populations with half the cost and better care. One might argue that universal care is contributing to budget deficits and some countries are introducing co-payment systems and private insurance along side public systems. But they still beat the US.

Even if the woman had some kind of political agenda, and even if she offended her audience, WHY DOES IT MAKE NATIONAL NEWS? Why does it affect YOU so much? Why are you letting it affect you? Fox News had ana genda by making that the front page story. Let me tell you, there were plenty of other things going on that day that should have made the headline spot on Fox News' website. Things that actually matter.

Even if the woman had some kind of political agenda, and even if she offended her audience, WHY DOES IT MAKE NATIONAL NEWS? Why does it affect YOU so much? Why are you letting it affect you? Fox News had ana genda by making that the front page story. Let me tell you, there were plenty of other things going on that day that should have made the headline spot on Fox News' website. Things that actually matter.

DPKell- The content of this site is nonpartisan and most of it was submitted by users. We accept submissions from everyone, regardless of party affiliation. As the moderator, I try to make sure submissions are as neutral as possible before they are accepted. Our blogger, Mark, will be the first to tell you he's a liberal democrat. That's just his style, but he welcomes commentary from people of all persuasions. He has attracted a lot of like-minded users, so I would assume the majority of active users on the site lean to the left. That shouldn't discourage you from participating though. We need people with contrasting opinions for constructive political discourse.

DPKell- The content of this site is nonpartisan and most of it was submitted by users. We accept submissions from everyone, regardless of party affiliation. As the moderator, I try to make sure submissions are as neutral as possible before they are accepted. Our blogger, Mark, will be the first to tell you he's a liberal democrat. That's just his style, but he welcomes commentary from people of all persuasions. He has attracted a lot of like-minded users, so I would assume the majority of active users on the site lean to the left. That shouldn't discourage you from participating though. We need people with contrasting opinions for constructive political discourse.

Agreed ffdesmond. This is a non-issue. It's not politically feasible.

Agreed ffdesmond. This is a non-issue. It's not politically feasible.

Wasn't the silent treatment supposed to somehow prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? That worked out well, didn't it? Now we need exhaust every option before we open up another front. That also includes verbal communication.

Wasn't the silent treatment supposed to somehow prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? That worked out well, didn't it?

Now we need exhaust every option before we open up another front. That also includes verbal communication.