RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit

RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

AnimusRex -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 3:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Thank you rml, thats awesome. We've found agreement on something. Everyone agrees, there is plenty of room to cut "non-discretionary" spending. Obama agrees, the Republicans agree... Everyone agrees, except Animus. Sigh...I gues I have to admit when I have been beat... Here is the proposed budget agreed to by "everyone"... FY 2010 Revenue: $More bcos we work real hard Social Security/Medicare: $What we spent last year, minus a whole lot that we cut Debt Service: $A bunch Defense: $A whole lotta Everything else: $Enough, minus the waste Total: $About right I think it was Lenin who said that if you gave the capitalists enough rope, they would hang themselves. Somewhere in Communist China, an central banker is smiling.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 3:39:05 PM)
Incidentally, this story... High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War ...includes a pop-up graphic about the 2009/est. 2010 cost of the Iraq/Afghan wars. "about $1 million per soldier per year"

Sanity -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 3:49:47 PM)
Those have been Obamas wars for nearly a year now, and they're both wars that Democrats voted for in overwhelming numbers. So what's your point?

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 3:53:46 PM)
What's yours? Read the story.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 4:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There is plenty of room in the current non-discretionary non-military budget for savings that would help spur the economy. (If not totally drowned out by health care "reform" and crap and tax). See, this is why the Republican Party will not be taken seriously- "plenty of room in the current non-discretionary non-military budget for savings " Non-discretionary, non military- Doesn't this mean cutting Social Security and Medicare? my bad, I meant discretionary non-military The thing that Obama is proposing? And the deficit is 1.4Trillion; are you proposing to cut 1.4 trillion, or cut less, and hope that a few hundred billion in growth makes up the difference? are you ignoring the "grow the economy" part of the posts intentionally? "...the budget will take care of itself" Sadly, no. Budgeting is about hard choices and common sense reasoning, not wishing and hoping and praying that we win the lottery. If a corporate CFO made that statement he would be fired on the spot. I find it ironic that an Obama supporter has laid out real numbers; you have laid out a wishful program of "hoping for change" Laying out real numbers is not laying out real budget cuts. Ive already said that its great if they actually happen.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Playing Trump National tomorrow merc...I'll wave at you two! Good for you! Pretty steep green's fees. I hope some business is writing them off. If I weren't fighting a cold (refuse to call it the flu!) we'd join you for a drink! Hit 'em straight! Decent food and drink in the bar. We go there for their brunch every Easter. The host can afford them, lol.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Did you miss the part where Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but a surplus? A surplus that Bush quickly pissed away? You must have missed the part about a couple of jets going into buildings in NYC. Ignoring that, and the unilateral, bipartisan response to it to built up military spending and increase security, while the economy was making its first circle around the drain; only points to a vision of those times remembered though a carnival mirror of partisan agenda. But at least that's consistent. But didn't the Bush deficit begin before 9/11, with his revenue cuts? No.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Did you miss the part where Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but a surplus? A surplus that Bush quickly pissed away? You must have missed the part about a couple of jets going into buildings in NYC. Ignoring that, and the unilateral, bipartisan response to it to built up military spending and increase security, while the economy was making its first circle around the drain; only points to a vision of those times remembered though a carnival mirror of partisan agenda. But at least that's consistent. Nonsense and you know it. We've had this discussion before. If 9/11 had never happened the tax cuts Bush pushed through would have evaporated the surplus regardless.

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Did you miss the part where Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but a surplus? A surplus that Bush quickly pissed away? You must have missed the part about a couple of jets going into buildings in NYC. Ignoring that, and the unilateral, bipartisan response to it to built up military spending and increase security, while the economy was making its first circle around the drain; only points to a vision of those times remembered though a carnival mirror of partisan agenda. But at least that's consistent. Nonsense and you know it. We've had this discussion before. If 9/11 had never happened the tax cuts Bush pushed through would have evaporated the surplus regardless. There was no surplus. The deficit increased every year during the Clinton years.

AnimusRex -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy my bad, I meant discretionary non-military[/color] are you ignoring the "grow the economy" part of the posts intentionally?[/color] I feel I am trapped in a Monty Python skit; Please, just read the flogging numbers- The ENTIRE discretionary non-military budget is 1/3 of the deficit; You can delete the entire government and still have One trillion dollars in deficit. So when you say "plenty of room for cuts in the discretionary budget, what in the world do you mean? "grow the economy" Again, read the post- Even assuming a rip roaring 10% increase in revenue, we will still have a One Trillion dollar deficit. If you sense frustration here, it is not just with you; There was a time, long ago, when the Republicans were the calm, reasonable, sensible voices, who went around saying sensible things like "there is no free lunch" and "you need to pay in taxes for what you receive in services"; Those days are long gone. Today the Republican Party is the party of voodoo economics that assume revenue and expenditures don't need to balance. The argument that taxes should not crush the conomy has transformed into a weird cultish faith that refuses to subject itself to empirical evidence, that relies on the scam of thinking that tax cuts pay for themselves, that wars pay for themselves, and a sound responsible fiscal policy can be achieved with no effort, no hard work or sacrifice. The Republicans have become the party of the free lunch. There are no Republican or conservative pundits, politicians, or even bloggers anywhere who are making a serious stab at budget proposals; they are all just wishful dreaming, vague arguments about welfare queens, and a fond hope that somehow, by some magic, the deficit will just vanish. Others, like Dick Cheney are more forthright; he simply told GWB that deficits don't matter. And to him, they didn't. And so no one with any sense trusts the Republicans with fiscal policy any more. Once more, for clarity- if you disagree with my conclusions, just take the budget numbers I laid out for this year, and adjust them to whatever you would like them to be for next year, and lets talk about it. Until then, you are just ducking the issue.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice But didn't the Bush deficit begin before 9/11, with his revenue cuts? No. Well, I guess that settles it. If Willbeur says no we can accept that as fact.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun There was no surplus. The deficit increased every year during the Clinton years. You're mistaking deficit for national debt. The last two years of the Clinton administration had a budget surplus which the CBO predicted (and as usual, incorrectly) would continue under the Bush administration. I would provide the links but I've posted it many times here before. But the information is easy to find.

servantforuse -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:45:12 PM)
I would get into this debate but I have my own problems this weekend. For the 4th time this year I will be at Lambeau Field. There is a problem though. The 12 time world champion Green Bay Packers are 4 and 4. After the Dallas Cowboys come to town tomorrow, we will be 4 and 5 . I will probably have to have a few more cocktails to cope..GO PACK..

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun There was no surplus. The deficit increased every year during the Clinton years. You're mistaking deficit for national debt. The last two years of the Clinton administration had a budget surplus which the CBO predicted (and as usual, incorrectly) would continue under the Bush administration. I would provide the links but I've posted it many times here before. But the information is easy to find. Yes, I meant the debt increased every year during the Clinton administration. Which meant there was a deficit. My source being through the Dept of the Treasury website.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 5:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I would get into this debate but I have my own problems this weekend. For the 4th time this year I will be at Lambeau Field. There is a problem though. The 12 time world champion Green Bay Packers are 4 and 4. After the Dallas Cowboys come to town tomorrow, we will be 4 and 5 . I will probably have to have a few more cocktails to cope..GO PACK.. While I'm a Browns fan (who aren't doing any better) I've always had the Packers as my secondary team. I remember reading about Bart Starr and Lombardi in grade school. But the thing I admire most is they are community-owned. At least I think that is still true.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:00:49 PM)
The CBO source... http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf quote: The swing in the Federal budget from deficit to surplus has resulted in nearly a doubling of the net national saving rate, making more funds available for private investment. (And incidentally, the improvement in the Federal budget deficit - now a surplus - accounts for all of the improvement in national saving.) Surging investment, especially in equipment incorporating the latest advances in technology, has contributed to a pickup in workers' productivity growth - and ultimately, in their wages. http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls1088.htm quote: President Clinton and Vice President Gore, working with the Congress, set the nation on a new course of fiscal responsibility. This program has reversed the pattern of deficit spending. In fiscal year 1999, a surplus of $99 billion, or 1.1 percent of GDP is expected. This would be the largest surplus relative to GDP since 1951. We have ended 28 consecutive years of deficit spending and recorded the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57. · In early 1993, the Federal budget was projected to be in deficit by $429 billion in 1999. Instead, we now expect a surplus of $99 billion. This amounts to a saving of almost $530 billion for 1999 alone. http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/debt.pdf umm... no surplus?

servantforuse -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:02:45 PM)
They are the only team in the NFL that are community owned ( share holders ). They are run like a company with a board o directors..Pretty neat for a city with a population of 100,000.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:05:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Yes, I meant the debt increased every year during the Clinton administration. Which meant there was a deficit. My source being through the Dept of the Treasury website. Then post it, I'm tired of doing research to dispute erroneous claims. You made the claim, back it up with facts.

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:06:03 PM)
Yet the national debt increased each year. Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.ustreas.gov/ Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/ Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny." Punch in the dates for the years in question, and you'll see the actual debt numbers, without the voodoo used to show a surplus where none existed. Clinton's last year in Office, we gained almost 18 billion dollars in debt. (Which is better than anyone's done since, but still a deficit.)

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:09:25 PM)
Oh, and also crunching the numbers you'll find that Clinton's last budget proposal for fiscal year 2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit, thus the growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125