This plan will eliminate the debt in 5 years.

[Heebie Jeebie]

LOL, Wow, a real genius for sure. Look, if we can't cut 85 billion out of approximately 3.8 trillion in spending, this country is headed down the tubes.

That's the unbelievable part. If such a small amount cannot be cut, basically what amounts to a little more than the estimated loss due to Medicare fraud, then we are in deep doo-doo.

 

[Samhain]

First off, heebie is using budget deficits. Fine use budget deficits. However when you quote "16 trillion" you are using total deficits. And his 2012 number is wrong. its under 1.1 trillion.

now read this slowly. Bush was irresponsible with the checkbook and the economy. Ive posted it over and over. The biggest cause of the deficit is revenue collapse. You cant blame it on spending when the 2013 budget calls for 3.55 trillion. Put that in perspective. Bush asked for 3.1 trillion in 2009. We spent 3.5 trillion. Just like Clinton, President Obama has limited the growth of spending. In 2012 we collected 2.45 trillion. Thats about what we collected in 2006. In 2009 it was mostly a revenue problem. Now its almost entirely a revenue problem. But guess what, one side keeps chanting "its only a spending problem".

For his last budget Bush asked for and got a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion. Thanks to the Great Bush Recession, spending was revised up and revenues revised down. Here’s the revision to Bush’s last budget FY 2009 and actuals. this was revised BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

Fiscal year_______2010____2011____2012
Total Revenues___ 2,162___ 2,302___ 2449
Total Outlays____ 3,456___ 3,598___ 3,538

I see a revenue problem when in 2009 we collect about what we collected in 2000. and in 2012 we collected about 2006 levels.

Your entire premise is flawed, since you are assuming that without Bush tax cuts revenue would have been dollar for dollar more. Static tax analysis(rate X always produces Y) are wrought with problems.

Additionally, when you state that revenues fell due to Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, both in conjunction with small recessions, why don't you point out that revenue increased from 2003 through 2008? Your time-slice examination excludes data points that are contrary to your narrative.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

First off, heebie is using budget deficits. Fine use budget deficits. However when you quote "16 trillion" you are using total deficits. And his 2012 number is wrong. its under 1.1 trillion.

now read this slowly. Bush was irresponsible with the checkbook and the economy. Ive posted it over and over. The biggest cause of the deficit is revenue collapse. You cant blame it on spending when the 2013 budget calls for 3.55 trillion. Put that in perspective. Bush asked for 3.1 trillion in 2009. We spent 3.5 trillion. Just like Clinton, President Obama has limited the growth of spending. In 2012 we collected 2.45 trillion. Thats about what we collected in 2006. In 2009 it was mostly a revenue problem. Now its almost entirely a revenue problem. But guess what, one side keeps chanting "its only a spending problem".


For his last budget Bush asked for and got a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion. Thanks to the Great Bush Recession, spending was revised up and revenues revised down. Here’s the revision to Bush’s last budget FY 2009 and actuals. this was revised BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

Fiscal year_______2010____2011____2012
Total Revenues___ 2,162___ 2,302___ 2449
Total Outlays____ 3,456___ 3,598___ 3,538

I see a revenue problem when in 2009 we collect about what we collected in 2000. and in 2012 we collected about 2006 levels.

What you call a "revenue problem", I call "pie in the sky" budgeting. The 2009 outlay figure which was revised from about 3 trillion to about 3.5 trillion included TARP funds. TARP was sold as a one shot deal but for some reason that revised budget figure has been used as the baseline for every budget since. It was a classic case of "moving the goalposts". All you have to do is look up federal outlays for confirmation of this. Under Bush, spending gradually crept up from just over 2 trillion a year to about 2.8 trillion or so by the end of his term. Obama took office and BAM!! Spending pops up to about 3.6 trillion a year and has remained at that level or higher.

It was a cheap parlor trick. The baseline should have began at no more than 3 trillion. The fact that in 2013 we are arguing over an 80 billion dollar cut to a budget that is over-priced by about 500 billion is mind boggling.

 

[Vern]

Your entire premise is flawed, since you are assuming that without Bush tax cuts revenue would have been dollar for dollar more. Static tax analysis(rate X always produces Y) are wrought with problems.

Additionally, when you state that revenues fell due to Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, both in conjunction with small recessions, why don't you point out that revenue increased from 2003 through 2008? Your time-slice examination excludes data points that are contrary to your narrative.

er uh sam, it would greatly help the conversation if you argue things I actually said. And I've left out no time slice so because I'm not discussing revenue year by year. Im discussing the overall revenue problem.

What you call a "revenue problem", I call "pie in the sky" budgeting. The 2009 outlay figure which was revised from about 3 trillion to about 3.5 trillion included TARP funds. TARP was sold as a one shot deal but for some reason that revised budget figure has been used as the baseline for every budget since. It was a classic case of "moving the goalposts". All you have to do is look up federal outlays for confirmation of this. Under Bush, spending gradually crept up from just over 2 trillion a year to about 2.8 trillion or so by the end of his term. Obama took office and BAM!! Spending pops up to about 3.6 trillion a year and has remained at that level or higher.

It was a cheap parlor trick. The baseline should have began at no more than 3 trillion. The fact that in 2013 we are arguing over an 80 billion dollar cut to a budget that is over-priced by about 500 billion is mind boggling.

I'm sorry I gave you any credit Jack. You can use pre Great Bush Recession 2009 as a baseline if you want. thats 3.1 trillion. But in one post alone you massaged it down to 'about 3 trillion' and then you massaged it down to 2.8 trillion.

and fyi, FY 2009 included TARP, the GSE bailout, the 'automatic stablizers' for UE, food stamps etc, and the stimulus. If you use 3.1 trillion as the baseline, 2013 spending has increased 110 billion a year. You'd have to go back to the increase from 2001 to 2002 to find a nominal increase smaller than 110 billion. So its no parlor trick. President Obama has limited spending increases.

You and all cons are just whining about spending because your politicians and editorials scream its 'only a spending problem' (which becomes a bigger lie every day). President Obama is lowering the deficit while trying to keep the economy from slipping back into recession. Sorry, President Obama and I live in reality and choices have to be made. And so far, President Obama is making the right choices.

 

[Perotista]

That's the unbelievable part. If such a small amount cannot be cut, basically what amounts to a little more than the estimated loss due to Medicare fraud, then we are in deep doo-doo.

Exactly, can anyone say politics as usual. Kick the can down the road. Don't worry about America's future, only worry about the next election.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I'm sorry I gave you any credit Jack. You can use pre Great Bush Recession 2009 as a baseline if you want. thats 3.1 trillion. But in one post alone you massaged it down to 'about 3 trillion' and then you massaged it down to 2.8 trillion.

and fyi, FY 2009 included TARP, the GSE bailout, the 'automatic stablizers' for UE, food stamps etc, and the stimulus. If you use 3.1 trillion as the baseline, 2013 spending has increased 110 billion a year. You'd have to go back to the increase from 2001 to 2002 to find a nominal increase smaller than 110 billion. So its no parlor trick. President Obama has limited spending increases.

You and all cons are just whining about spending because your politicians and editorials scream its 'only a spending problem' (which becomes a bigger lie every day). President Obama is lowering the deficit while trying to keep the economy from slipping back into recession. Sorry, President Obama and I live in reality and choices have to be made. And so far, President Obama is making the right choices.

Do you foresee a time where you would ever consider joining the real world or do you just plan on engaging in pure partisan hackery indefinitely?

Federal outlays. Here are the numbers:

2005 2.47T
2006 2.66T
2007 2.73T
2008 2.98T
2009 3.52T
2010 3.46T
2011 3.60T
2012 3.80T(est)

What I said was spot on. The baseline magically shifted from where it should have been(about 3 trillion) to about 500 billion dollars higher. Spending got jacked up in 2009 and it has remained jacked up ever since. You want to spend your days playing "shift the blame", "hide the facts", or "it's not my fault" go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone with a functioning brain that isn't up the ass of his favorite political party to give your words anything more than a parting snicker.

 

[Vern]

Work with me jack. First off FY 2012 is over. You don’t have to keep using the convenient and wrong estimates from Wikipedia.

President Obama’s budgets. The first 3 are actuals. 2013 is the estimate from the Budget Outlook that usually comes out every Jan. (this year was feb). and jack, I’ve posted these numbers before. You cant argue them but you can pretend not to see them. Please stop.

Fiscal year_______2010____2011____2012____2013 est
Total Revenues___ 2,162___ 2,302___ 2449_____2,708
Total Outlays____ 3,456___ 3,598___ 3,538_____3,553


FY 2008, bush asked for 2.9 trillion. FY 2008 started Oct 1 2007. the Great Bush Recession started Dec 2007. Now recognizing a slow down, Bush mailed out a stimulus check Q2 2008. UE started creeping up. These things among others started adding costs to the FY 2008. Actuals came in at 2.98 Trillion. (are you still with me.)

The process for FY 2009 budget starts early 2008. CBO was not even predicting a recession, just a slowdown. Bush asked for and got a 3.1 Trillion dollar budget. (I think this is the thing you keep trying to pretend isn’t true). Revenues were projected to be 2.8 trillion. That budget started Oct 1 2009. Once Lehman failed, what was considered just a normal recession (Q3 GDP was -3.7 %) became the Great Bush Recession. (Q4 GDP was -8.9 % job losses averaged over 600k Nov Dec and increasing)

““During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild, averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an av¬erage of 639,000 jobs lost per month.”

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf

So again, go ahead and use Pre Great Bush Recession baseline, 3.1 Trillion dollars. Yes actuals came in at 3.5 trillion. I’ve posted that over and over so you’re not telling me something I don’t know. The sooner you realize I’m posting the facts, the sooner you can think clearly and stop confusing yourself.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

So again, go ahead and use Pre Great Bush Recession baseline, 3.1 Trillion dollars. Yes actuals came in at 3.5 trillion. I’ve posted that over and over so you’re not telling me something I don’t know. The sooner you realize I’m posting the facts, the sooner you can think clearly and stop confusing yourself.

And what caused those "actuals" to come in so far over budget? Job losses and, by default, revenue losses have nothing to do with spending and neither does "the great Bush recession". Those things effect REVENUE. So again, why in did pending come in so far over budget? Could it have been due to TARP? The auto bailout? You know, things that were sold to us as "one time expenditures"?

 

[code1211]

One vote un-elects no one, need to rally other voters in the "district" to un-elect one Representative.

Maybe in 2014.

We can only hope that it rains that day.

 

[code1211]

LOL, Wow, a real genius for sure. Look, if we can't cut 85 billion out of approximately 3.8 trillion in spending, this country is headed down the tubes. It is time to find a country that doesn't hold dollars in reserve and move there. Cash in all assets and take them to another country. The Great Depression will look like Utopia once all this spending and borrowing catches up with us and we fall off into that financial ruin abyss.

Will they mail my Social Security to Vancouver?

I can get satellite TV and still watch the re-runs of Monk. Maybe that quarter of French I took in college will finally pay off.

 

[Perotista]

Will they mail my Social Security to Vancouver?

I can get satellite TV and still watch the re-runs of Monk. Maybe that quarter of French I took in college will finally pay off.

I like the reruns of NCIS on USA. I don't know about SS going to Vancouver, but I do plan on moving to Thailand shortly. Once there my SS will be deposited in my bank account in the states, once there I write a check on it to the Bangkok Bank account, but I must wait 30 days before I can write a check on it over there. So the trick is to take enough cash to last 30 days, then it becomes a cycle, a routine as the same as receiving the SS in the states. Only you are running 30 days behind.

 

[Vern]

And what caused those "actuals" to come in so far over budget? Job losses and, by default, revenue losses have nothing to do with spending and neither does "the great Bush recession". Those things effect REVENUE. So again, why in did pending come in so far over budget? Could it have been due to TARP? The auto bailout? You know, things that were sold to us as "one time expenditures"?

so jack, I guess you figured out your 'figures' weren't as spot on as you thought. So I guess you are willing to use 3.1 trillion for FY 2009 as baseline finally, yes or no?

And your "job losses" have nothing to do with spending is priceless. I told you already "FY 2009 included TARP, the GSE bailout, the 'automatic stablizers' for UE, food stamps etc, and the stimulus." Jack when people lose their jobs, costs go up. UE checks, food stamps, medicaid costs. And get this. People old enough decide to collect SS. Jack, here let the CBO tell you costs go up. They said this before TARP and the GSE bailout. this is early 2008 before Bush poured gasoline on the economy and set it on fire when he let lehman fail.


CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018

"Economic performance worse than that suggested in CBO’s forecast could significantly decrease projected
revenues and increase projected spending"

No shock there. recessions cost money. And worst recessions since the depression cost more. You should read those budget outlooks. You might learn something and stop arguing with me so much. and here's a little back up about my Lehman comments

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"

Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers

 

[Jack Fabulous]

so jack, I guess you figured out your 'figures' weren't as spot on as you thought. So I guess you are willing to use 3.1 trillion for FY 2009 as baseline finally, yes or no?

And your "job losses" have nothing to do with spending is priceless. I told you already "FY 2009 included TARP, the GSE bailout, the 'automatic stablizers' for UE, food stamps etc, and the stimulus." Jack when people lose their jobs, costs go up. UE checks, food stamps, medicaid costs. And get this. People old enough decide to collect SS. Jack, here let the CBO tell you costs go up. They said this before TARP and the GSE bailout. this is early 2008 before Bush poured gasoline on the economy and set it on fire when he let lehman fail.


CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018

"Economic performance worse than that suggested in CBO’s forecast could significantly decrease projected
revenues and increase projected spending"

No shock there. recessions cost money. And worst recessions since the depression cost more. You should read those budget outlooks. You might learn something and stop arguing with me so much. and here's a little back up about my Lehman comments

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"

Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers

All of this and not one single word of relevance. The only thing even close to addressing anything relevant to the topic is costs going up to cover unemployment benefits. Lehman Brothers going under does not contribute to a 500 billion dollar increase in federal spending. The "erosion of global equity markets" doesn't either... unless you are claiming that the United States government was heavily invested in them. Is that what you are trying to say? The US lost it's ass because of the market collapse and we needed to up the baseline by 500 billion a year to compensate?

 

[Vern]

All of this and not one single word of relevance. The only thing even close to addressing anything relevant to the topic is costs going up to cover unemployment benefits. Lehman Brothers going under does not contribute to a 500 billion dollar increase in federal spending. The "erosion of global equity markets" doesn't either... unless you are claiming that the United States government was heavily invested in them. Is that what you are trying to say? The US lost it's ass because of the market collapse and we needed to up the baseline by 500 billion a year to compensate?

well jack, you're sorta right. the facts I'm posting aren't relevent to your delusions. I see you are still stuck on that 3 trillion dollar baseline instead the actual 3.1 trillion. And Lehman collapsing panicked the market. 10 trillion fled the market. Job losses went from over 350 k a month to over 600k. It was over 700 k in Jan. So as usual not only are you wrong but you cant even follow a simple point.

you need help I cant give you.

 

[code1211]

The gist of this seems to be that President Bush rang up an irresponsible amount of debt during his term. I would certainly agree with this assessment. The debt incurred during Bush's term was irresponsible.

What I'm having trouble with is that it seems like you are using the fact that Bush was irresponsible with the checkbook as some sort of validation for Obama doing the very same thing.

The very same thing on steroids.

 

[code1211]

Exactly, can anyone say politics as usual. Kick the can down the road. Don't worry about America's future, only worry about the next election.

The end result of the whole mess is that both parties have controlled both the congress and the White House over the last 12 years and they have all failed the American people.

The spending today is twice what the spending was in 2000 and the country continues to decay because the lying thieves in Washington simply cannot stop themselves from Lying and stealing.

It's time to shut down the whole mess in DC and move the real power back to the states.

Remember when DC Comics was a Comic Book company and not our Federal Government? Every one of these lying, stealing, corrupt and corrupting perverts is disgusting.

 

[code1211]

I like the reruns of NCIS on USA. I don't know about SS going to Vancouver, but I do plan on moving to Thailand shortly. Once there my SS will be deposited in my bank account in the states, once there I write a check on it to the Bangkok Bank account, but I must wait 30 days before I can write a check on it over there. So the trick is to take enough cash to last 30 days, then it becomes a cycle, a routine as the same as receiving the SS in the states. Only you are running 30 days behind.

I can live with that.

Thanks for the, um, guidance.

Just out of curiosity, would it make sense to set up that US bank account in a state with no income tax or does that make a difference with Social Security net payments?

 

[haymarket]

The sequester is set to cut the growth of spending by 85 billion dollars.

According to the guy who suggested it in the first place, this is the wrong $85 billion and he seems to be right. This particular $85 billion is the $85 billion the will pay for Defense, Teachers, School Lunches, Air Traffic control, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Housing Assistance, Millions of Federal Employees, Highways, Trains, AmTrak, Park Services, and anything else is performed by the Federal Government, State Governments or Local Governments.

This is obviously the wrong $85 billion to cut since this particular $85 Billion seems to pay for every program used at every level of government to do anything at all.

This $85 Billion is the wrong $85 billion to cut. It's the rest of the $3.75 Trillion that will be spent that is not needed.

If we go ahead and spend this $85 billion and cut the rest, we should be okay since the rest is not used to pay for anything anyway.

We'll be out of debt in 5 years. Obama is a genius!

Perhaps you edited out some of the paragraphs that got you from point A to point Z. this makes little sense.

Could you quote where "the guy who suggested it in the first place" says what you claim about cutting the rest of the 3.75 trillion and sparing this amount?

 

[Perotista]

I can live with that.

Thanks for the, um, guidance.

Just out of curiosity, would it make sense to set up that US bank account in a state with no income tax or does that make a difference with Social Security net payments?

It could depending on what state you claim as your residence. Even though I will be living in Thailand, Georgia is still my home and the SS check will go to my bank account there. There is no state income tax on retirement funds, annuities, ss etc up to 35,000. States like Tennessee and Florida have no state income tax.

 

[Perotista]

The end result of the whole mess is that both parties have controlled both the congress and the White House over the last 12 years and they have all failed the American people.

The spending today is twice what the spending was in 2000 and the country continues to decay because the lying thieves in Washington simply cannot stop themselves from Lying and stealing.

It's time to shut down the whole mess in DC and move the real power back to the states.

Remember when DC Comics was a Comic Book company and not our Federal Government? Every one of these lying, stealing, corrupt and corrupting perverts is disgusting.

You probably have a very valid point. When one party controls either the house or the senate while the other party is in the White House, that acts like a counter balance to the party in power in the white house. That is if the party controlling one or the other chambers in congress has the guts to stand up to the president which is a lot harder than one would think. Remember the president has the bully pulpit and not too many people listen to what the speaker or the senate majority leader says. Both of our two major parties are corrupt owing their allegiance to the special interests, lobbyists, corporation, wall street firms etc that provide all the cash for them to run for elections.

 

[iguanaman]

I don't know about Obama being a genius but he's got you fooled.

How the hell has Obama reduced the deficit every year when he hasn't had a budget accepted or adopted by the congress in the last three years of his first term and there's no budget in sight for next fiscal year either?

You forget that budgets come from the House where the lights are on but nobodys home. But Obama has already cut 2.5 Trillion without their help.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The end result of the whole mess is that both parties have controlled both the congress and the White House over the last 12 years and they have all failed the American people.

The spending today is twice what the spending was in 2000 and the country continues to decay because the lying thieves in Washington simply cannot stop themselves from Lying and stealing.

It's time to shut down the whole mess in DC and move the real power back to the states.

Remember when DC Comics was a Comic Book company and not our Federal Government? Every one of these lying, stealing, corrupt and corrupting perverts is disgusting.

50 governments that hardly agree on anything and cannot coordinate their actions is not a functioning country. The articles of confederation died because the states cannot act in the national interest.

You place too much faith in the ability of state government.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You forget that budgets come from the House where the lights are on but nobodys home. But Obama has already cut 2.5 Trillion without their help.

Actually, you forget that the process of creating a budget starts with the President submitting a budget request to congress - his past three have received not a single vote from either Republicans or Democrats in either the Senate or the House. The second step is for both the House and the Senate to pass budget resolutions which are marked up in budget subcommittees in each house and then voted on as appropriations bills and reconciled in conference where there are differences - the House has done this every session, the Senate, under Harry Reid, now refuses to do this.

It's a shame that a Canadian seems to know more about your form of government and the process for such a simple thing as a budget, and you haven't a clue.

 

[code1211]

Perhaps you edited out some of the paragraphs that got you from point A to point Z. this makes little sense.

Could you quote where "the guy who suggested it in the first place" says what you claim about cutting the rest of the 3.75 trillion and sparing this amount?

Um...

Changed paragraphs. The guy who proposed the Sequester is Obama. These are the cuts he contrived. It is he who is now saying that this particular 85 Billion is the money that is gong to support the functions of the Federal Government that are most visible to the populace.

I'm a little happy about his Sequester. As I recall, it is the first time that he has EVER proposed cutting any spending at any time for any reason in any place. It's not enough, but it shows he understands that it can actually be done.

 

[code1211]

50 governments that hardly agree on anything and cannot coordinate their actions is not a functioning country. The articles of confederation died because the states cannot act in the national interest.

You place too much faith in the ability of state government.

What i am suggesting is not the Articles of Confederation, it's the Constitution of the united States.

Read the thing and find out that the whole Document reserves rights and powers to the individuals and to the various states.

Centralizing power and the uncountable amount of cash in DC as it now is creates and has created a den of vipers that are the curse of our country and a cancer that needs to be cut out.

The only way to do this is to take away the money.