0 members (),
9
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,558
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134 |
you really need to get the language correct if you want to be taken seriously adding $5T+ to the deficit budget deficits are added to national debt A deficit is caused by a combination of falling revenues and over spending that should be an "and/or" as LT has accurately pointed out it is the House which controls the purse strings in America, not Obama I guess that depends on your definition of large not wanting to step on ardy's comment but a definition is not necessary however if you want to respond to his comment you may now present the case that increased spending has generated the deficits ... let me help you with an example if Obama had proposed a budgets of 30% more than previous budgets and revenues remained flat then it would be a case of both lost revenues and overspending so you may now present that case with some factual information ... but .... i think what ardy obliquely referred to is the simple fact that the first budget was %3.53T and the current budget is $3.58T and we assume $0.5T was the deficit for each of the three budgets we get a total deficit of $1.5T ... ergo the deficits accumulated so far can not be a direct result of overspending but has a different cause ... perhaps you should explore that and present a report on your findings
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
if Obama had proposed a budgets of 30% more than previous budgets and revenues remained flat then it would be a case of both lost revenues and overspending so you may now present that case with some factual information ... but .... i think what ardy obliquely referred to is the simple fact that the first budget was %3.53T and the current budget is $3.58T and we assume $0.5T was the deficit for each of the three budgets we get a total deficit of $1.5T ... ergo the deficits accumulated so far can not be a direct result of overspending but has a different cause ... perhaps you should explore that and present a report on your findings Actually, the only large spending program I am aware of was the stimulus package.... lets say 900B at the outside. A program that has had far less budget impact than the various bush tax cuts
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
if Obama had proposed a budgets of 30% more than previous budgets and revenues remained flat then it would be a case of both lost revenues and overspending so you may now present that case with some factual information ... but .... i think what ardy obliquely referred to is the simple fact that the first budget was %3.53T and the current budget is $3.58T and we assume $0.5T was the deficit for each of the three budgets we get a total deficit of $1.5T ... ergo the deficits accumulated so far can not be a direct result of overspending but has a different cause ... perhaps you should explore that and present a report on your findings Actually, the only large spending program I am aware of was the stimulus package.... lets say 900B at the outside. A program that has had far less budget impact than the various bush tax cuts Since a tax cut is approved by Congress, that money is already taken out of the calculation during budgeting. The House turned Dem in 2007, I believe the last year that a budget was actually approved was in 2008. If a budget was passed and approved with knowlege that the funding was cut by bi-partisan tax cuts, then it is the height of irresponsibility for Congress to authorize funds above and beyond what is actually available to be spent. The fact that a budget hasn't been passed in over 1100 days has given a blank check to Obama and his supposed financial team. It has allowed him to play politics with funding and only the Tea Party has reined in Omama's spending. There is an extra $5T that was borrowed and not repaid over the past three years. and almost $7T since Pelosi and Reed were large and in charge. For all of that money we have gotten bank failures, wasted "stimulus", union welfare, anti-business policies and taxes and 10% unemployment. The housing crash has a lot to do with these issues, but Congress as a whole did nothing about it for years leading up to the crash. It is counter intuitive to think that if you spend more than you earn your economy will improve and prosper. Eventually the bills have to be paid. This mis-administration (administration denotes control)has squandered whatever chance they had to actually accomplish anything to reduce the rising debt they are inflicting upon America. To say that Obama spending binge never happened and note a $5T deficit confirms my belief that liberalism is a self inflicted adiction, no different than a herion adiction, it is the inability of supposedly smart people to recognize the concept of financial stability. Couple that with an inate and false belief in the superiority of their cult's morals and ideas and you have the profile of a very mentally disturbed human being. I would point fingers at one or two, but they are too many to seperate from the herd of lemmings and followers who only question their mental health in the privacy of their own bathroom, tha the location where their ideas took root and make the most sense.
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643 |
if Obama had proposed a budgets of 30% more than previous budgets and revenues remained flat then it would be a case of both lost revenues and overspending so you may now present that case with some factual information ... but .... i think what ardy obliquely referred to is the simple fact that the first budget was %3.53T and the current budget is $3.58T and we assume $0.5T was the deficit for each of the three budgets we get a total deficit of $1.5T ... ergo the deficits accumulated so far can not be a direct result of overspending but has a different cause ... perhaps you should explore that and present a report on your findings Actually, the only large spending program I am aware of was the stimulus package.... lets say 900B at the outside. A program that has had far less budget impact than the various bush tax cuts And I think it's important to remember that a month before Bush's second term was up (2008), Paulson begged for 750 Billion. Bush also put 25 Billion in the auto industry. But what people really forget was the 164 Billion stimulus Bush had Congress to appropriate in Feb 2008. So the total money Bush and his administration asked for and got in his last year in office was kissing $1 Trillion. And of course all of that money did very little to control things to come...other than bail out the very corporations who continue to reign over our government and who is are still practicing business the very same way that they did that caused our crash. We are still in a terrible mess.
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" 
Yours Truly - Gregg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133 |
...It is counter intuitive to think that if you spend more than you earn your economy will improve and prosper. Eventually the bills have to be paid... Excellent! So you agree that the idiotic tax cuts must be left in the ditch in order that we pay the bills. Very good. There were a few lapses in your logic, like administration = control, and Congress is irresponsible and that is Obama's fault... but I choose not to get into that in favor of basking in our new-found agreement. 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134 |
i continued to be amazed that people such as yourself clam to know how government works and then proceed to expose their ignorance ... i am not expert but at least when i don't know something i do the research Since a tax cut is approved by Congress, that money is already taken out of the calculation during budgeting. incorrect ... i don't think that has ever been the case ... typically Congress believes that a tax cut will increase revenues from other sources such as larger tax base from increased employment and wages ... look back to the Bush era tax cuts and see that Republicans did not reduce the budget (I know it is hard to believe in your world that political parties other than the Democratic party spends money like a profligate but it is true) ... now by every estimate those tax cuts will be the leading factor in increased deficits in the near future it is the height of irresponsibility for Congress to authorize funds above and beyond what is actually available to be spent this is a could go either way statement ... in some cases i would agree with you and in other cases i would disagree a blatant and not inconsequential example would be the budgets of 2008-2009 ... in 2007 when budget was proposed no one had an inkling that the worst economic contraction in 70 years was imminent and thus revenues would be slashed by the downturn ... in 2008 the Bush administration rightfully decided that to cut the budget in the face of the worst economic contraction in 70 years would do more damage to the already failing economy than borrowing money to sustain it ... the Obama administration likewise furthered the concept with additional borrowed funds to save the economy from the proverbial train wreck The fact that a budget hasn't been passed ... has given a blank check to Obama and his supposed financial team really??? ... you better read those continuing resolutions which Obama did not write ... the House wrote them and the president must abide by them ... no blank checks were given For all of that money we have gotten bank failures, wasted "stimulus", union welfare, anti-business policies and taxes and 10% unemployment. ok you are going to have to explain these one at a time what has federal deficit spending to do with a bank failure? can you quantify the wasted stim spending (there were some cases)? can you quantify the cost of union welfare (this is a fav of elrushbo ... are you getting this from him or he from you) how much does "anti-business" policies cost? (gee another elrushbo fav) which taxes? now you understand that if you have revenue it is not part of a deficit? unemployment ... i will presume you actually know what you are talking about so could you quantify unemployment insurance payouts and show how much they caused a rise in deficits? Now if you can't show these things I will have to conclude you are simply either blowing it out your [ ... ] or regurgitating elrushbo without understanding his lame argument It is counter intuitive to think that if you spend more than you earn your economy will improve and prosper it could be but remember businesses as a matter of course borrow money to expand. but then government doesn't control the economy except when in a contraction then government intervention can stall the downturn. whatever chance they had to actually accomplish anything to reduce the rising debt they are inflicting upon America you do realize that the rising national debt has been a long term process over at least 40 years ... the point being this administration is not the only culprit as you have made them out to be liberalism is a self inflicted adiction, no different than a herion adiction, it is the inability of supposedly smart people to recognize the concept of financial stability. Couple that with an inate and false belief in the superiority of their cult's morals and ideas and you have the profile of a very mentally disturbed human being ... the herd of lemmings and followers ... wow straight out of michael savage ... and you with all the tea people minions constitute the bastion of right thinking gee how can i respond to the savage nation ... he is so way smarter than me ... he must be right ... i am mentally disturbed so please let me be a tea people ... [geez ... while vomiting]
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I will simply make two simple notes here: One, the thread is about the lack of a "spending binge." All of this talk of ballooning deficits is really just a distraction and unrelated to the original basis for the thread. Second, that is the point. Changing the subject is the standard Republican response. When the facts do not support your argument, change the subject. No matter what, blame, blame, blame. Facts are not important, blame is, and if you don't have the facts, make them up. If that doesn't work, resort to name calling and stereotyping. It is still blaming, but now you can spread the blame to all of the "opposition." Finally, and no matter what, never accept even an iota of responsibility, fault, or error. DO NOT BACK DOWN. Any reasonableness or acceptance of responsibility is a sign of weakness and is NOT TO BE TOLERATED. Only the opposition is weak.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Now, for those interested in how all of this gobbledygook is supposed to work, may I present "United States budget process - an overview" - from Wikipedia (note, this exceeds the 150 word limit, but is not subject to copyright restriction - Wikipedia:Copyrights): The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.
Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years. However, the CBO also computes a current-policy baseline, which makes assumptions about, for instance, votes on tax cut sunset provisions. The current CBO 10 year budget baseline projection grows from $3.7 trillion in 2011 to $5.7 trillion in 2021.
The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.
Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.
In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations. United States budget process
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,088 Likes: 134 |
well elrushbo has commented and stated unequivocally that the nutting article is phony, not true etc and that even Democrats are distancing themselves from the article ... Ann Coulter commented that after conferring with AEI economists they determined that Nutting fudged the numbers ... the criticism is Nutting used 2009 as a baseline but determined that all of 2009 was from Bush budget and therefore led to erroneous conclusions ergo their original bashing is accurate that Pres Obama is a spendthrift
so i guess we have to check the facts and what we see is Congress enacted a budget of $3.52T ... received revenues of $2.1T ... using kindergarten arithmetic that means there was a deficit of $1.4T
now the proposed budget was $3.1T and was expanded to $3.5T when signed by Pres Obama in Mar after ARRA was enacted in Feb ... without reading transcripts of committee proceedings the reasons for the increase is not known but if there is some reference to ARRA then it is only worth $400B, which in turn only slightly changes the numbers of Nuttings analysis from that perspective
all in all, the conservatives still do not understand the difference between budgets and deficits ... it is no small wonder they appropriated $4T in new spending (which led directly to new debt) during the Bush administration
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
By the way, from the chart itself, it is clear that Nutting did shift that responsibly, but it would be too much to expect ultra-right-wing blowhards to actually read what they are criticizing. It is only important to know that it doesn't support their narrative.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|