- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Sigh.
When you have $X, you can only run a deficit if you choose to spend >$X.
This is true even when X goes down from one year to another.
It is true, period.
Every single dollar spend is subject to revision, every single benefit represented by non-discretionary spending can be reduced or eliminated.
SocSec, Medicare - spending all entitlement programs can be cut.
This is covered by discretionary spending.
treasury.gov is a talking point, is it?
Spits the Conservative who claimed all of the following numbers that the CBO added to their FY2009 budget forecast revision:
$700B
$500B
$461B
$180B
$398B
$180B
Which one have you settled on?
Cries a Bush 19% JAR supporter. :roll:
FY2009, the US government took in >$2.1TInteresting concept, liberals have. Problem is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal appetite for spending as they attempt to make this country into a wonderful European socialist utopia.
No, that is simply incorrect. If you "revise" your decision to pay obligations that you have already incurred, you will not end up saving money for the government. Quite the opposite, in fact. Contractors will, going forward, charge a higher rate to account for the risk that some genius in the past decided the government could simply choose not to pay for already-completed work. If anyone is willing to lend to the government they will only do so if they receive a much higher interest rate to account for the risk that some genius decided that the government could simply *choose* not to pay its bills. Actions have consequences.
Guess Bush won't win the 2012 election. Amazing how you continue to make Bush, Reagan, and Clinton the issue as they don't matter. What matters is what Obama is doing and I doubt he will get the support of the 24 million plus unemployed or under employed Americans to vote for him. Based upon the lastest results he has 40% support as more and more people actually see his results and how they affect them. Wonder when you will wake up?
It is absolutely correct.No, that is simply incorrect.
Entitlement benefits -- the vast majority of mandatory spending - are not 'already incurred'.If you "revise" your decision to pay obligations that you have already incurred
And what is the approval rating for the Republicans in Congress?
Adam, do you realize that the fiscal year of the U.S. Govt. runs from Oct to Sept? that is the term of the budget as well so the fiscal year 2011 budget ends the end of next month as do the obligations for the non discretionary spending.
Didn't know they broke out Congressional Approval ratings by party. Why such loyalty to Obama?
Yes, I understand that. I also understand that you can't possibly crunch the numbers for the U.S. government the way you're trying to do it. For example, even if there is technically enough money to pay SS, the checks won't go out of you don't pay the government employees who process the checks. And you won't have the money you claim you have if you don't pay the IRS and other employees to actually collect the money.
At the moment we are only taking in about half the revenue we need to pay all our bills. Thus, obviously, if we don't borrow the rest we are going to default on about half of our obligations. Basic arithmetic.
Of course they break it down by party. FYI, the approval for Republicans in Congress is at 25% in the latest Pew poll. For Democrats it's at 30%. Kinda makes Obama's 41% look not so bad, eh?
You mean Liberal spending like we had during these years of Republican budgets which generated these deficits?Interesting concept, liberals have. Problem is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal appetite for spending as they attempt to make this country into a wonderful European socialist utopia.
You mean Liberal spending like we had during these years of Republican budgets which generated these deficits?
2004: 595,821,633,587
2005: 553,656,965,393
2006: 574,264,237,492
2007: 500,679,473,047
Now ya know...Didn't know they broke out Congressional Approval ratings by party. Why such loyalty to Obama?
Now ya know...
July:
Pew Research Center: 25%
USA Today/Gallup: 28%
NBC News/WSJournal: 25%
Quinnipiac: 26%
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. How did this happen? Simple; this is what American politics looks like when there’s no left-wing movement and no war.
Let’s start with the first point. Liberals are furious that President Obama agreed to massive spending cuts, and the promise of more, without any increase in revenues. They should be: Given how much the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the deficit (and how little they’ve spurred economic growth), it’s mind-boggling that they’ve apparently escaped this deficit-reduction deal unscathed.
But there’s a reason for that: since the economy collapsed in 2008, only one grassroots movement has emerged in response, and it’s been a movement of the right. Compare that with what happened during the Depression. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency and launched the hodgepodge of domestic programs that historians call the first New Deal. By 1935, however, he was looking warily over his left shoulder at Huey Long, whose “Share our Wealth” movement demanded that incomes be capped at $1 million and every family be guaranteed an income no less than one-third the national average.
To be sure, FDR had vehement opponents on his right, but he was at least as concerned about the populist left, which helps explain why he enacted the more ambitious “second new deal,” which included Social Security, the massive public jobs program called the Works Progress Administration and the Wagner Act, which for the first time in American history put Washington on the side of labor unions.
Historians will long debate why the financial collapse of 2008 produced a right-wing populist movement and not a left-wing one. Perhaps it’s because Obama didn’t take on Wall Street, perhaps it’s because with labor unions so weak there’s just not the organizational muscle to create such a movement, perhaps it’s because trust in government is so low that pro-government populism is almost impossible.
Whatever the reason, it was the emergence of the Tea Party as the most powerful grassroots pressure group in America that laid the groundwork for Sunday night’s deal. The fact that polling showed Obama getting the better of the debt ceiling debate barely mattered. The 2010 elections brought to Congress a group of Republicans theologically committed to cutting government.
But it’s not just the absence of a mass left-wing movement that explains last night’s deal. It’s the end of the war on terror. From 9/11 until George W. Bush left office, the “war on terror” defined the Republican Party.
The Tea Party, by contrast, is a post-war on terror phenomenon. Many of the newly-elected Republicans are indifferent, if not hostile, to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re happy to cut the defense budget, especially since cutting the defense budget makes it easier to persuade Democrats to swallow larger cuts in domestic spending. It’s the reverse of the cold war dynamic.
The good news is that the Tea Party, more than Barack Obama, has now ended the neoconservative dream of an ever-expanding American empire. The bad news is that it has also ended whatever hopes liberals once entertained that roughly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, roughly 75 years after the New Deal and roughly 50 years after the Great Society, we were living in another great age of progressive reform.
Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering, those neocon and progressive dreams are now likely dead for many years to come. Meanwhile, the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes ever real.
Kinda makes Obama's 41% look not so bad, eh?
Premises:
1) The Tea Party stands for cutting government funded health care and against raising taxes
2) These people are still alive and functional due to government funded health care
3) These people are members of the tea party
Corollary:
a) The appellative “Tea Baggers,” taken initially by the Tea Party themselves in ignorance of the term’s derogatory connotations, is an unsubtle reminder that they have previously advocated positions without fully comprehending their larger ramifications.
You mean Liberal spending like we had during these years of Republican budgets which generated these deficits?
2004: 595,821,633,587
2005: 553,656,965,393
2006: 574,264,237,492
2007: 500,679,473,047
WTF?? You whine daily about the debt but you don't think that $2.2T added by Republican budgets matter today?think any of those deficits matter today with Obama's trillion dollar deficits?
Only to Bush cultists.no matter how you spin it, Obama is making Bush look good.
WTF?? You whine daily about the debt but you don't think that $2.2T added by Republican budgets matter today?
Oops, forgot I was talking to a devout partisan. Never mind.
Only to Bush cultists.
After 29 months in office, Obama lost 2.4 million jobs; Bush lost 3.4 million jobs.
That makes Bush look good, right? :roll:
No, I don't. What happens in years like 2008 and 2009 when a recession wreaks havoc on the budget? We're supposed to be forced by the Constitution to cut much needed spending during a recession? That would surely doom the economy.Yes, both parties have overspent. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment. I'm sure you'll agree that the amendment would be a good thing. Right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?