GOP/DEM Continuing Resolution Would Add over 500bn in debt.

[jonny5]

Forget Obamacare, and just do the math. The continuing resolution, which both parties 99% agree with, would spend over a trillion dollars in 3 months. Taxes only bring in 150bn a month, which means the govt would have to borrow 500bn to pay for it. So why are we focused on defunding Obamacare when the bigger issue of the debt is far more important. Instead of forcing the issue on actually passing a responsible budget, congress is again passing the buck 3 months down the road and authorizing another trillion in annual debt. And of course the media wont even get beyond the partisan bickering to actually tell people how the parties are fooling them with these distractions.

CBO | Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J. Res. 59), including the amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules on September 18, 2013 (H.Res. 352)

 

[obvious Child]

Uh...how do you know all of that is for the next three months and not for future spending?

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 59) - GovTrack.us

Congress will often appropriate money for future programs that aren't in the fiscal year even if the amounts are passed in bills within an unrelated fiscal year.

"Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 - Makes continuing appropriations for FY2014. Appropriates amounts for continuing operations, projects, or activities which were conducted in FY2013 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of P.L. 113-6); the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division B of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013 (division C of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (division D of P.L. 113-6); the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division E of P.L. 113-6); and The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of P.L. 113-6)."

The military is getting over $500 billion. That has to be partially for future years. There is no way the military is spending almost its entire budget in 3 months.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Forget Obamacare, and just do the math. The continuing resolution, which both parties 99% agree with,

Um, 229 to 190 is not "99% in favor".

And as child pointed out, that defense spending is nearly the entire year since last year it was @ $672B.

 

[jonny5]

Uh...how do you know all of that is for the next three months and not for future spending?

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 59) - GovTrack.us

Congress will often appropriate money for future programs that aren't in the fiscal year even if the amounts are passed in bills within an unrelated fiscal year.

"Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 - Makes continuing appropriations for FY2014. Appropriates amounts for continuing operations, projects, or activities which were conducted in FY2013 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of P.L. 113-6); the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division B of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013 (division C of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (division D of P.L. 113-6); the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division E of P.L. 113-6); and The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of P.L. 113-6)."

The military is getting over $500 billion. That has to be partially for future years. There is no way the military is spending almost its entire budget in 3 months.

Because I read the bill:

Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014, appropriations and funds made available and authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until whichever of the following first occurs: (1) the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity provided for in this joint resolution; (2) the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 without any provision for such project or activity; or (3) December 15, 2013.

Edit: Im wrong, the CBO states that they based it on annual amounts.

This resolution would provide funding through December 15, 2013, except for $636 million for wildland fire management (secs. 126 and 127), which
is available until expended. It includes effects of the 2013 sequestration. Amounts are shown on an annualized basis. There are no amounts
designated as emergency funding in this resolution.

In which case its worse, because then you have to add mandatory spending which consumes almost all of revenue, meaning this bill alone is almost all borrowed money.

 

[jonny5]

Um, 229 to 190 is not "99% in favor".

And as child pointed out, that defense spending is nearly the entire year since last year it was @ $672B.

The 99% refers to the fact that only problem the Democrats had with it was Obamacare. Which is why the Senate is passing the exact same bill with the Obamacare defunding removed.

 

[American]

Uh...how do you know all of that is for the next three months and not for future spending?

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 59) - GovTrack.us

Congress will often appropriate money for future programs that aren't in the fiscal year even if the amounts are passed in bills within an unrelated fiscal year.

"Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 - Makes continuing appropriations for FY2014. Appropriates amounts for continuing operations, projects, or activities which were conducted in FY2013 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of P.L. 113-6); the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division B of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013 (division C of P.L. 113-6); the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (division D of P.L. 113-6); the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division E of P.L. 113-6); and The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of P.L. 113-6)."

The military is getting over $500 billion. That has to be partially for future years. There is no way the military is spending almost its entire budget in 3 months.

No it's not spending it in 3 months, but you have programs that by law must be fully funded in increments. So this funds a program for all of FY14 (1 Oct 2013-30 Sep 2014).

 

[jonny5]

No it's not spending it in 3 months, but you have programs that by law must be fully funded in increments. So this funds a program for all of FY14 (1 Oct 2013-30 Sep 2014).

But the fundings cut off in December. In any case, my point was that while we're focused on this Obamacare defunding issue which is a tiny part of it, congress is all to happy to pass yet another CR with blanket funding, no attempts to cut spending, and which will cause us to borrow another few hundreds of billions. I expect it from democrats, but all the fiscal hawks are ignoring it, and worse, theyre voting FOR it.

 

[American]

But the fundings cut off in December. In any case, my point was that while we're focused on this Obamacare defunding issue which is a tiny part of it, congress is all to happy to pass yet another CR with blanket funding, no attempts to cut spending, and which will cause us to borrow another few hundreds of billions. I expect it from democrats, but all the fiscal hawks are ignoring it, and worse, theyre voting FOR it.

You expect it from Dems and of course give them a pass. It's like giving a pass to killers when they kill, cause it's expected. Makes it okay doesn't it? :roll: I've seen lots of libertarians do this, give Dems a pass but not Reps. Libertarians have a special place in their hearts for Republicans that shows up in these debates.

 

[jonny5]

You expect it from Dems and of course give them a pass. It's like giving a pass to killers when they kill, cause it's expected. Makes it okay doesn't it? :roll: I've seen lots of libertarians do this, give Dems a pass but not Reps. Libertarians have a special place in their hearts for Republicans that shows up in these debates.

:roll: Because the criticism of Democrats is implied.

 

[CalGun]

a small price to pay to stop the obamafarce

Forget Obamacare, and just do the math. The continuing resolution, which both parties 99% agree with, would spend over a trillion dollars in 3 months. Taxes only bring in 150bn a month, which means the govt would have to borrow 500bn to pay for it. So why are we focused on defunding Obamacare when the bigger issue of the debt is far more important. Instead of forcing the issue on actually passing a responsible budget, congress is again passing the buck 3 months down the road and authorizing another trillion in annual debt. And of course the media wont even get beyond the partisan bickering to actually tell people how the parties are fooling them with these distractions.

CBO | Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J. Res. 59), including the amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules on September 18, 2013 (H.Res. 352)

 

[Bronson]

Forget Obamacare, and just do the math. The continuing resolution, which both parties 99% agree with, would spend over a trillion dollars in 3 months. Taxes only bring in 150bn a month, which means the govt would have to borrow 500bn to pay for it. So why are we focused on defunding Obamacare when the bigger issue of the debt is far more important. Instead of forcing the issue on actually passing a responsible budget, congress is again passing the buck 3 months down the road and authorizing another trillion in annual debt. And of course the media wont even get beyond the partisan bickering to actually tell people how the parties are fooling them with these distractions.

CBO | Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J. Res. 59), including the amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules on September 18, 2013 (H.Res. 352)

Millionaire optimism hits 9½-year high, Spectrem Group says

Millionaires are feeling good. Maybe too good.

The Spectrem Group's Millionaire Confidence Index, which measures the investment outlook of the wealthy, reached its highest limit in its 9½-year history. After bumping along in single digits since the recession, millionaire confidence suddenly spiked to 23.

Obama's cronies have to be paid (with your money)

 

[head of joaquin]

a small price to pay to stop the obamafarce

Obsess much?

 

[jonny5]

a small price to pay to stop the obamafarce

But they could not pass it with the same result.

 

[jonny5]

Millionaire optimism hits 9½-year high, Spectrem Group says



Obama's cronies have to be paid (with your money)

Don't see how that's relevant to the topic.

 

[Bronson]

Don't see how that's relevant to the topic.

You said the debt is the most important issue

 

[obvious Child]

Because I read the bill:

Edit: Im wrong, the CBO states that they based it on annual amounts.

In which case its worse, because then you have to add mandatory spending which consumes almost all of revenue, meaning this bill alone is almost all borrowed money.

That doesn't answer my question. Some of that is clearly for the last 3 months, but obviously some of it is not for the next three months. The military is getting over $500 billion. That's close to their entire annual budget. How the hell is that just for 3 months?

 

[obvious Child]

No it's not spending it in 3 months, but you have programs that by law must be fully funded in increments. So this funds a program for all of FY14 (1 Oct 2013-30 Sep 2014).

That's what I'm thinking. There is no way this is just for three months.

 

[American]

:roll: Because the criticism of Democrats is implied.

Sure it is.

 

[head of joaquin]

No it's not spending it in 3 months, but you have programs that by law must be fully funded in increments. So this funds a program for all of FY14 (1 Oct 2013-30 Sep 2014).

And hence the OP made a false statement when it said that we would be adding $500B in debt for expenditures in the next three month. Yes the debt would be increased, but if it is being spent over a year it means we might not have to incur further debt for that same period (or at least the subsequent debt might be smaller)

 

[jonny5]

You said the debt is the most important issue

Actually, I said its MORE important than Obamacare, but I dont see how millionaires feeling good relates to that.

 

[jonny5]

That doesn't answer my question. Some of that is clearly for the last 3 months, but obviously some of it is not for the next three months. The military is getting over $500 billion. That's close to their entire annual budget. How the hell is that just for 3 months?

Yes I did. I said you were right. The CBO estimate is for a year.

 

[Bronson]

Actually, I said its MORE important than Obamacare, but I dont see how millionaires feeling good relates to that.

Then maybe you need to do a little more research into what the The Federal Reserve is doing to your savings

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Forget Obamacare, and just do the math. The continuing resolution, which both parties 99% agree with, would spend over a trillion dollars in 3 months. Taxes only bring in 150bn a month, which means the govt would have to borrow 500bn to pay for it. So why are we focused on defunding Obamacare when the bigger issue of the debt is far more important. Instead of forcing the issue on actually passing a responsible budget, congress is again passing the buck 3 months down the road and authorizing another trillion in annual debt. And of course the media wont even get beyond the partisan bickering to actually tell people how the parties are fooling them with these distractions.

CBO | Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J. Res. 59), including the amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules on September 18, 2013 (H.Res. 352)

Guy, here's the thing: whether you like it or not, the important thing is not how much one is spending, but how much one is MAKING. What you need to pay attention to is NOT the trillions of the federal debt, but the debt-to-GDP ratio - because regardless of the level of debt, if the ratio is getting lower, that means the economy is getting better, growing faster than the debt is growing:



The ratio shot up during the Depression, WWII, the Reagan/Bush 41 years, and the Bush 43 years. During the thirty years from 1950-1980, we got the ratio under control - thanks to the understanding that NO, high tax rates and government spending didn't destroy the American economy; instead, that's part of what helped our economy grow for three solid decades. Reagan came in and slashed tax rates - including corporate tax rates, and look what happened. He raised taxes somewhat, and Bush 41 raised them some more, and Clinton raised them a little bit more, and we boomed in the 1990's. Bush 43 came in and slashed taxes again, and what happened?

Whether you like it or not, that government spending is much of what helped our nation grow. Slash government spending, and you'll find out what several nations in Europe are finding out right now - that austerity does. not. work.

One more thing - it makes for great rhetoric to want to slash government spending - it sounds really good, really sensible, doesn't it? BUT if you'll look at the world, every single one of the first-world democracies are SOCIALIZED democracies. If big government spending was SO bad for a nation's economy, then there wouldn't be ANY socialized democracies in the First World...but instead, the most successful economies - the ones with the most modern infrastructure and highest standards of living - on the planet are SOCIALIZED democracies.

Yes, that's great rhetoric you hear from your fellow libertarians - no doubt about it - but when you compare that rhetoric to the reality of the world's economies, libertarian rhetoric just doesn't explain that reality.

 

[jonny5]

Then maybe you need to do a little more research into what the The Federal Reserve is doing to your savings

Or you need to make an arguement. Its a debate forum. Its not my job to make your argument for you.

 

[jonny5]

Guy, here's the thing: whether you like it or not, the important thing is not how much one is spending, but how much one is MAKING. What you need to pay attention to is NOT the trillions of the federal debt, but the debt-to-GDP ratio - because regardless of the level of debt, if the ratio is getting lower, that means the economy is getting better, growing faster than the debt is growing:



The ratio shot up during the Depression, WWII, the Reagan/Bush 41 years, and the Bush 43 years. During the thirty years from 1950-1980, we got the ratio under control - thanks to the understanding that NO, high tax rates and government spending didn't destroy the American economy; instead, that's part of what helped our economy grow for three solid decades. Reagan came in and slashed tax rates - including corporate tax rates, and look what happened. He raised taxes somewhat, and Bush 41 raised them some more, and Clinton raised them a little bit more, and we boomed in the 1990's. Bush 43 came in and slashed taxes again, and what happened?

Whether you like it or not, that government spending is much of what helped our nation grow. Slash government spending, and you'll find out what several nations in Europe are finding out right now - that austerity does. not. work.

One more thing - it makes for great rhetoric to want to slash government spending - it sounds really good, really sensible, doesn't it? BUT if you'll look at the world, every single one of the first-world democracies are SOCIALIZED democracies. If big government spending was SO bad for a nation's economy, then there wouldn't be ANY socialized democracies in the First World...but instead, the most successful economies - the ones with the most modern infrastructure and highest standards of living - on the planet are SOCIALIZED democracies.

Yes, that's great rhetoric you hear from your fellow libertarians - no doubt about it - but when you compare that rhetoric to the reality of the world's economies, libertarian rhetoric just doesn't explain that reality.

Im not your guy, pal. No, debt to GDP is not important. Its only purpose is to make the number 16,000,000,000 look smaller.