What End of Bush Tax Cuts Means for You [W: 1475]

[Conservative]

So you support trillion dollar budgets...go figure:roll:

Which is less, 3.8 trillion or a trillion?

 

[winston53660]

Which is less, 3.8 trillion or a trillion?

real or nominal ?

BTW see my sig

 

[Conservative]

real or nominal ?

BTW see my sig

Do you think budgets are in real or nominal dollars?

 

[winston53660]

Do you think budgets are in real or nominal dollars?

Do you think 1980 dollars are of equal value to 2012 dollars?

 

[Conservative]

Do you think 1980 dollars are of equal value to 2012 dollars?

That wasn't the question, are budgets done in real or nominal dollars? You think the Reagan Budget of 1 trillion dollars would be 3.8 trillion today?

 

[winston53660]

That wasn't the question, are budgets done in real or nominal dollars? You think the Reagan Budget of 1 trillion dollars would be 3.8 trillion today?

Why don't ya go look it up and get back to me when you have something of substance.

 

[Conservative]

I have, 1 trillion dollars in 1988 which was the 1988 budget would be 1.8 trillion today or 2 trillion less than the Obama budget. Next?

 

[winston53660]

That wasn't the question, are budgets done in real or nominal dollars? You think the Reagan Budget of 1 trillion dollars would be 3.8 trillion today?

Why don't you go look it up and get back to me when you have something of substance.

 

[winston53660]

I have, 1 trillion dollars in 1988 which was the 1988 budget would be 1.8 trillion today or 2 trillion less than the Obama budget. Next?

So that would mean Obama is pretty much on par with spending relative to the 88 budget. And debt accumulation.

For better or worse at least future generations won't have to pay those inflated interest rates from the 80's.

 

[Phoenix]

That's because Obama does not want to crash the economy like Romney does. Taking money from those that would spend it in the economy comes right out of GDP. Taking money fron the top 1% does not effect spending in the economy. In fact it gives it a boost as all that hedge fund money gets put to work building bridges and schools. In America and not Iraq this time.
All your whining about paying more and you still have more than you can spend, such a piker.

Yea, we've heard that before....

 

[Phoenix]

So you support trillion dollar budgets...go figure:roll:

I don't mind Trillion dollar budgets. as long as we have a trillion dollars to cover them.

 

[poweRob]

I don't mind Trillion dollar budgets. as long as we have a trillion dollars to cover them.

Wouldn't be a problem had the repubs weren't so apposed to paygo legislation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Wouldn't be a problem had the repubs weren't so apposed to paygo legislation.

Thats some disingenuous bull**** there.

They said the Affordable HealthCare Act was paygo legislation. If thats an example of liberal "pay as you go" legislation, I'd vote it down too.

 

[poweRob]

Thats some disingenuous bull**** there.

They said the Affordable HealthCare Act was paygo legislation. If thats an example of liberal "pay as you go" legislation, I'd vote it down too.

Disingenuous? So you are saying that the GOP is actually FOR paygo legislation?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Disingenuous? So you are saying that the GOP is actually FOR paygo legislation?

No Im saying that the liberal definition of it requires twisting the numbers so hard that the purpose of the law is defeated---as evidenced by the Affordable Health Care Act.

 

[AdamT]

No Im saying that the liberal definition of it requires twisting the numbers so hard that the purpose of the law is defeated---as evidenced by the Affordable Health Care Act.

Seems conservatives have a hard time understanding this. The AHCA raises over all health care spending, but *reduces* government health care spending. Thus, repealing AHCA would increase the debt.

 

[washunut]

Seems conservatives have a hard time understanding this. The AHCA raises over all health care spending, but *reduces* government health care spending. Thus, repealing AHCA would increase the debt.

It reduces ALL government spending including the states? The beauty of what Pelosi, Reid and Obama did by not implementing the law until 2014 no one really knows what it will or will not cost. Let's not get into the scam of the estimates of what the law will cost because we all know that there are a bunch of bogus assumptions built in that you know will never be realized.

Just wondering, I have heard that there are folks who get paid to write stuff on sites like these for political parties or interest groups.

 

[AdamT]

It reduces ALL government spending including the states? The beauty of what Pelosi, Reid and Obama did by not implementing the law until 2014 no one really knows what it will or will not cost. Let's not get into the scam of the estimates of what the law will cost because we all know that there are a bunch of bogus assumptions built in that you know will never be realized.

Just wondering, I have heard that there are folks who get paid to write stuff on sites like these for political parties or interest groups.

I was just referring to federal spending, and yeah, based upon CBO estimates because, as flawed as they are, they're the best we've got.

 

[Taylor]

2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really are confused, aren't you? The 2008 budget that you linked to ended in September... months before Obama took office. The 2009 budget is what's relevant here. When you look at that one you'll see that the FY2009 budget was not signed by Bush, but by Obama. The Dems, who controlled the house at the time, kept the wars going but didn't do much with Bush's budget other than sit on it until he was out of office. Bush wanted to put a freeze on domestic spending and they weren't going to have any of that.

Instead, they funded programs with a continuing resolution, and waited until Bush was gone and Obama was in. It wasn't until six months into the fiscal year that the bulk of the appropriations bills were signed. They packaged nine appropriations bills from the previous year into one "omnibus" bill, and increased government spending by another $410B. Obama OK'd that bloated, pork-laden bill just a week after the $787B Stim-u-less. And now they call that "Bush's Budget" - lol.

So you see, Bush had much less to do with the 2009 budget than you think.

 

[winston53660]

You really are confused, aren't you? The 2008 budget that you linked to ended in September... months before Obama took office. The 2009 budget is what's relevant here. When you look at that one you'll see that the FY2009 budget was not signed by Bush, but by Obama. The Dems, who controlled the house at the time, kept the wars going but didn't do much with Bush's budget other than sit on it until he was out of office. Bush wanted to put a freeze on domestic spending and they weren't going to have any of that.

Instead, they funded programs with a continuing resolution, and waited until Bush was gone and Obama was in. It wasn't until six months into the fiscal year that the bulk of the appropriations bills were signed. They packaged nine appropriations bills from the previous year into one "omnibus" bill, and increased government spending by another $410B. Obama OK'd that bloated, pork-laden bill just a week after the $787B Stim-u-less. And now they call that "Bush's Budget" - lol.

So you see, Bush had much less to do with the 2009 budget than you think.

The '08 budget adds up to over a trillion dollars.

 

[Catawba]

No, you are the one that is blind, Budgets do not require 60 votes in the Senate, continuing resolutions do. You simply are brainwashed and cannot admit when wrong

[h=3]Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget[/h]
"It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate."

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

 

[Taylor]

The '08 budget adds up to over a trillion dollars.

As I already explained, Obama had nothing to do with the 2008 budget. It was closed out months before he took office. He wasn't "handed" the 2008 budget. The first budget he got a hold of was the 2009 budget, and that was largely handed to him by his own party.

He got handed a trillion dollar budget!

 

[winston53660]

As I already explained, Obama had nothing to do with the 2008 budget. It was closed out months before he took office. He wasn't "handed" the 2008 budget. The first budget he got a hold of was the 2009 budget, and that was largely handed to him by his own party.

The 09 budget was what signed by Obama 2, 4 months in into his trm in office? He got handed a trillion dollar plus deficit budget.

 

[Taylor]

The 09 budget was what signed by Obama 2, 4 months in into his trm in office? He got handed a trillion dollar plus deficit budget.

Yeah, they took it down to the deadline - wasn't introduced until late February, a month after Obama took office, and took another month to go through Congress.

Obama wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit - the budget that Bush wrote called for hundreds of billions less in spending - cut a bunch of programs, scaled back Medicare/Medicaid to the tune of $200B, etc. etc. - as I said, it was for the most part ignored.

 

[winston53660]

Yeah, they took it down to the deadline - wasn't introduced until late February, a month after Obama took office, and took another month to go through Congress.

Obama wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit - the budget that Bush wrote called for hundreds of billions less in spending - cut a bunch of programs, scaled back Medicare/Medicaid to the tune of $200B, etc. etc. - as I said, it was for the most part ignored.

200B is what of a trillion........