I'm past disgust! KERRY *STILL* UNDERSTATES THE BUSH DEFICIT? WHY?

[ulTRAX]

I just don't get it. Kerry REFUSES to state the true extent of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. Kerry typically states Bush has record deficits and when a number is mentioned, it's the bogus unified budget numbers which understate the deficit by some 150 BILLION. I just heard a Kerry ad stating the deficit is over 400 Billion. True... but Bush has added 574 BILLION to the debt this year! WTF is going on? So if YOU were advising Kerry... which figure would YOU choose to use? Does Kerry want to win this race or not? I've posted on this topic endless times at the Kerry forum... the one where mods there CLAIM they pass good suggestions up to the campaign. The ONLY excuse I can come to is that Kerry is also using the bogus unified budget figures in his own budget plan. OK... then why not use the new FY04 DEBT figures?

According to http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5897&sequence=0
the preliminary estimate for the FY04 deficit is 415 Billion. This appears to be the bogus "unified budget" deficit. According to a CBO report in September
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=1&from=0
some 153 Billion was borrowed from Off-Budget surpluses. This should NOT be counted as revenue since it must be repaid to the various trust funds the money was borrowed from.... and the only way to pay it back is with on-budget revenues.

This means a reasonable estimate for the TRUE FY04 deficit in on-budget revenues is 568 BILLION. CBO will firm up the figures later this month.

Looking at the national debt... according to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cg...~www/opdpen.cgi

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
10/01/2003 $6,804,504,127,055.70

Bush has run up some $574,548,569,274.62 in new debt for FY04. That's 574 BILLION.

[Stephanie]

1. I was just wondering about that - Bob Herbert's column today:

Many thoughtful analysts see a fiscal disaster developing here at home, with the president's tax cuts being the primary contributor to the radical transformation of a $236 billion budget surplus into a $415 billion deficit. The president sees, incredibly, a need for still more tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22herbert.html?oref=login&hp

I take this to mean that Bush has blown $651 billion??

[ulTRAX]

5. or, using on-budget numbers.......

Those are on unified budget numbers which treat off-budget surpluses that are borrowed and SPENT... as revenue. Both the Dems and GOP use them to conceal the extent of their fiscal irresponsibility because they have that 150 fudge factor. Why is this important? Because when those Social Security IOUs come do.... they have to be paid back with ON-budget surpluses. Right now those revenues are 568 BILLION in then red.

Kerry's own budget plans to cut the deficit in half use these deceptive unified budget numbers. But if Kerry can't quote the true on-budget revenue deficit.... then he can quote the amount of new Bush debt.

As for the revenue turn around, using the ON-budget revenue numbers... Clinton had an on-budget revenue surplus of 87 billion in FY2000 and Bush has an on-budget revenue deficit of 567... 654 BILLION revenue turn around.

[On the Road]

2. Well, for One Thing...

Kerry has to give a longer and more nuanced answer, which he will be ridiculed for and which will not reach the public in a clear form. He may feel he's better off with the widely distributed number.

Using the larger number also allows him to be drawn into a dispute about what the actual number is. This has become a classic Republican defense -- a kind of bait-and-switch tactic. The media just reports the he-said-she-said aspect of it and the whole issue just dies.

The $400B number is large enough to make the same political point. Kerry has a long record of being a fiscal conservative, and he knows the real story. I'm more interested in what happens when he gets into office.

[durablend]

4. The American populace can't understand those numbers

In the hundreds of billions, piling on some more isn't going to make that much difference. Left leaners know the trend is bad, right leaners just ignore it altogether no matter how high it is.

[On the Road]

6. That's Right -- This is Why I Was Arguing That

Kerry needs to find a way to get the chart in front of the public. Seeing the enormous swings visually is much more compelling than hearing a bunch of numbers. I still think Kerry should showcase this chart in an ad. It would change some minds.

[CAcyclist]

27. I agree - A chart is far more effective than a numbers game

Even my eyes glaze over when I hear details on the deficit.

We have an enormous deficit when we had an enormous surplus on four years ago. That's good enough for me and its good enough for the Kerry campaign. "Keep it simple stupid" is a good motto especially with the deliberately moronic press we have right now.

I wonder why someone who uses "WTF" liberally throughout their post is getting hysterical about this non-issue. Reminds me of the goose hyperventilation non-issue thread from last night.

Let's ignore these threads that freak out about stupid details. We have more important stuff to do.

[ulTRAX]

16. that's why VISUAL AIDS are vital

Kerry is leaving the deficit/debt abstract.

Yet check out this site... http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion

Their math understates the true volume of cash. I estimate the Bush FY04 deficit of 568 Billion would cover a regulation football field... 360x160... with a stack of cash some 430 FEET tall. The Bush debt... some 1200' tall.

You don't think such a powerful technique could work? I think it would make many Bush supporters sick to their stomachs!

[ulTRAX]

29. the Right has learned to embrace fiscal irresponsibility

In a way you're correct. Who knows what a billion let alone a trillion looks like. The Right takes advantage of these abstractions and confuses the issue with other stats like the deficit/debt's percentage of the GNP. But the absolute deficit numbers SHOULD be used simply because they are the TRUE numbers.

Since Reagan the Right has been using fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon to strangle government. It's not true to say the public has no understanding of these issues. Gore DID win more votes in 2000 running on a more responsible budget. Even Bush ran pretending to be a fiscally responsible. THAT'S the true bait and switch story here. Just check out this old Bush press release http://romcache.tripod.com/Bush2000PressRelease.pdf If you're running XP SP2 be sure to allow the content to load.

If the Right is targeting the fiscal health of government to bring about its anti-government revolution, then strategically the Democrats MUST counter the Right's Big Lie that tax cuts, no matter how irresponsible, are a free lunch. NOT using the true deficit numbers is surrendering the issue. NOT being creative and making these astronomical number less abstract is also surrendering the issue. Bush should NOT be given a free pass on that 150 BILLION being borrowed from the federal trust funds not should Kerry refuse to use the TRUE deficit numbers if they work to his advantage. If Dems don't use this issue now when it counts the most... when will they? Or are Democrats complicit in hiding the true fiscal health of the nation from the public?

[ulTRAX]

8. I can't disagree more

If the numbers are widely reported, then it's up to the press to stop helping politicians deceive the American People. Kerry COULD easily explain that some 150 BILLION from off-budget surplus and has to be REPAID. Since saving Social Security depends on repaying those IOUs for the Baby Boom retirement... using the real numbers helps Kerry explain why Bush's fiscal irresponsibility is such a threat to the program. Those IOUs can only be repaid with on-budget surpluses. Yet Bush sabotaged revenues before there was any real debt-paydown, and created structural deficits far into the future. If the Dems are EVER to get out of the revenue black hole the Tax Cut Psychos on the Right have created... then they MUST deal straight with the American People and expose the Right's real plans to strangle government by sabotaging revenues.

[sangh0]

10. You can say it, but I still don't believe it

Kerry COULD easily explain that some 150 BILLION from off-budget surplus and has to be REPAID

Lots of people are having a really hard time understanding that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ, so I don't think it's safe to assume that ANYTHING might be "easily explained" to those people.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedog]

3. maybe if the media would give

him more air time to explain...........instead they pick out a statement that doesn't really matter to the majority of people.ex cheneys daughter......theresas remark.kerry hunting........its all a disgraceful game to discredit Kerry.......

[ulTRAX]

37. it's not the media's fault in this case

It's completely Kerry's fault. The media covers the sound bites.... and they have been Kerry talking about "record deficits". When a figure is given, even in Kerry ads, it's the lower unified budget figure.

The media also tends to use the lower figure when reporting CBO or OMB reports... and they don't spend any time explaining the complexities of the federal budget. But it wouldn't take much to get the media to report the true numbers IF Kerry saw this reporting as a problem and he used the correct numbers.

[Atman]

7. Deficit numbers are a non-starter

We don't care, as a nation. I've heard about "deficits" my whole life, and I can't ever remember them directly affecting my way of life. Besides, it opens up an area of attack for Bush, he can claim Kerry is being negative, blah blah. The deficit is there, it is huge, we all know that. We need to focus on the many ways Bush's policies will change our lives for the worse...contitutional issues, environment, health care, inflation (stealth-deficit discussion), etc.

New DUCOMIX today!

[ulTRAX]

11. if deficits don't matter... then it's a matter of education

Yes, Cheney said Reagan proved the American People don't care about deficits. But given that since Reagan the Right has been using fiscal irresponsibility to sabotage government. They'd prefer 320-360 BILLION get pissed away on interest than ever freeing that money up for a Democratic agenda. If there's any hope for that Democrat agenda such as universal health care, then the lies and distortions of the Tax Cut Psychos on the Right MUST be exposed.

I believe that the Democrats just aren't creative enough. I've been suggesting for the past 6 months that since deficits are too abstract... who really has an idea what a Billion is let alone a trillion. Visual aids are the key. For example Bush's FY04 on-budget revenue deficit of 568 Billion would cover a regulation football field (360x160) with some 430 FEET of cash... tightly packed $1 bills. The Bush debt is a tower of cash some 1200 FEET tall. The national debt equals some 4.5 WTC towers of cash. I'm willing to bet such ads would shock the hell out of many Bush supporters. See this page for an example http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

[Atman]

13. I don't argue that education re: deficits is needed

But we have less than two weeks, and a hostile media.

Ain't gonna happen, so we need to stay focused on what is most likely to connect with the ignorant masses. Hate to say it, but our strategic options are limited at this point.

[ulTRAX]

15. what does the media have to do with it?????????????

The 400 Billion deficit figure I heard was from a KERRY AD!

I've heard plenty of news coverage where Kerry is hear talking about record deficits. Are you suggesting if Kerry had changed that to 568 Billion, the REAL figure, the press would refuse to cover this?

Yes, the Press is sometimes lazy and partisan. But the refusal to quote the real deficit figure is KERRY'S fault... not the media's.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

9. If they don't care about one, they won't care about the other.

With everything else that's been revealed about Bush and Co., do you really think this will make one tiny whit of difference? The guy started a war for NO REASON, fer chrissakes. No amount of deficit is going to convince these people to change their minds.

[ulTRAX]

12. so you're saying Kerry should not bother telling the truth...

So you're saying Kerry should not bother telling the truth... because Bush voters are impervious to the truth?

Yes, many are. But I can not disagree more with your odd notions of campaign strategy. There's NO place in a campaign over the future of the nation and hope for a future Democratic agenda to NOT use EVERY issue that works in Kerry's favor and to Bush's detriment.

[donco6]

17. Just chill out.

Spare me the "not bother telling the truth" crap. We all know Kerry's been closest to the truth all along. If you want to rush about tilting at windmills, go ahead. But if you're going to snarl epithets on the way, don't expect me to feel bad when you fall on your arse.

[ulTRAX]

18. I take it you're not going to answer my question

donco6 wrote: "Just chill out. Spare me the "not bother telling the truth" crap. We all know Kerry's been closest to the truth all along. If you want to rush about tilting at windmills, go ahead. But if you're going to snarl epithets on the way, don't expect me to feel bad when you fall on your arse.

So you're saying Kerry should not bother telling the truth about the true extent of Bush's fiscal responsibilityb... because Bush voters are impervious to the truth?

How is quoting the TRUE deficit figure "tilting at windmills"?

I'll give you a second chance. Please turn down the empty rhetoric and Kerry apologetics, and turn up the thoughtfulness.

[sangh0]

21. Why don't you just issue a blanket denunciation

for everyone who disagrees with you?

We're all just a bunch of people who do "not bother telling the truth"

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

28. I've figured out your angle...

You're trying to hit a thousand posts today.

Seriously, why else would you continue on with this?

Okay, so I agree (as I did before, although you still hurled), Kerry should use the real number. Great. Whoopee!

What does that gain? I'll tell you what...fresh "flip-flopper" bait just a week before the election. Period.

The deficit is HUGE. America understands that. We all understand that. Kerry understands that. Ten billion here, ten billion there...do you seriously think it will change one mind or have any impact whatsoever on anything? I don't actually believe either number is truly correct, so there. It is so disgustingly huge that it could be off by billions in either direction.

Ultrax...it simply makes no difference at this point.

[ulTRAX]

32. are you suggesting 150 billion is trivial?

Atman wrote: ""I've figured out your angle. You're trying to hit a thousand posts today."

That comment is not worth responding to.

Atman: "Seriously, why else would you continue on with this?"

How about because IT'S F*CKING IMPORTANT!

Atman: "What does that gain? I'll tell you what...fresh "flip-flopper" bait just a week before the election. Period."

And what would your response to my post have been a month ago? 2 months? The same? Have any posts in which you were critical of the Kerry campaign? I've been complaining about this issue at the Kerry forum since last April: http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=22592

Atman: "The deficit is HUGE. America understands that. We all understand that. Kerry understands that. Ten billion here, ten billion there...do you seriously think it will change one mind or have any impact whatsoever on anything? I don't actually believe either number is truly correct, so there. It is so disgustingly huge that it could be off by billions in either direction."

Are you suggesting 150 Billion is trivial? Look what just 87 Billion looks like: http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion You don't think this approach could have an impact with some Bush voters or some undecideds?

Are you suggesting that Kerry should give Bush a free pass on this issue while he nitpicks the flu vaccine issue? I believe this issue CAN make a difference... IF IF IF the Democrats use visual aids.

But since the Democrats almost universally used the deceptive unified budget numbers.... we SHOULD wonder how straight THEY are being with the American People.

[shelley806]

30. Look at Your Logo-Impeach Bush!

He has committed impeachable offenses. We are at war with Iraq without justification, this administration covers all tracks and continues to lie to us, and there is no media coverage of it. The media talks about non-issues. The war is not even being adequately (if it ever was) covered pre-election. I think Kerry needs to blast Bush with everything he's got on every negative aspect. That criminal Bush has got to go. Kerry gets "tough" though, and Candy Crowlines makes catty remarks about the "combat." Kerry needs to lay everything on the line. Reveal the ineptitude and corruption of this administration. At least there will be the satisfaction, if Bush wins, that fools once again chose to ignore everything other than what they wanted to hear, and they will have to live with the consequences.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

39. locking -- this has gotten out of hand