• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did Tax Revenue INCREASE.....AFTER The Bush, Reagan, and JFK Tax Cuts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you know when budgets are supposed to be submitted? Outdated information? You don't have a clue and show it often.
Your insults aside, yes, you posted outdated information. You posted the initial projection which was made long before the economy tanked. After it tanked, the CBO adjusted their deficit projections to account for the recession, housing crisis, credit crisis, massive recession, and millions of workers laid off.

That was the Bush Budget and the housing crisis led to TARP which the CBO included in their projections. That was 700 billion added to the 400 billion Bush deficit which gets us close to the 1.2 trillion that you claim Obama inherited. That of course is a lie because it wasn't 700 billion and thus the Obama contribution is a lot higher than you want to admit but then again you buy what Obama tells you. Your claim of 200 billion is a lie
<sigh> You are lying again. The CBO did not add $700B to their updated projection to account for TARP. Evidence that you are lying can be demonstrated by your inability to link to a government report which states what you are now making up.

You can't because there is no such document. Stop making **** up out of whole cloth.


Here is the Bush 2009 Official Budget so now tell me where Obama got his claim of 1.2 trillion inherited?

Budget of the United States Government: Browse Fiscal Year 2009
How many times do I need to show this to you?
CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf
 
Last edited:
Where did I say that? I do not want to vote away anyones wealth. I am perfectly content to have them keep much of it if they earned it honestly. I have no problem with that... I have no issue with that.

And lets clarify just who "a bunch of people like me" are. I am no different than the bunch of people who have always worked hard through their entire adult lives and played by the rules and did what they were suppose to do. I am one of the bunch of people who have seen folks like them getting screwed by the system which is in favor of corporations and the wealthy and we see them paying less and less than they used to pay not too long ago. I am one of the bunch of people who pay their taxes, pay their bills, do their civic duty and provide the backbone for the American dream. I am one of the bunch of people who worked for every single thing they have and are self made men and women who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I am one of the bunch of people who put ourselves through school working nights and weekends and sacrificed to get what we have and are thankful for it.

So when you cast derision at "a bunch of people like me", it would be a great idea to know who you are attacking.
amen brother
 
did what they were suppose to do. I am one of the bunch of people who have seen folks like them getting screwed by the system


You chose poorly. I did what I wanted. You're way to focused on the goal; I'm all about the journey. And now you're bitter... "gettin' screwed!" Haha. Better luck next time. Having seen the failure of authoritarianism, it's a wonder you can promote it.
 
Last edited:
Your insults aside, yes, you posted outdated information. You posted the initial projection which was made long before the economy tanked. After it tanked, the CBO adjusted their deficit projections to account for the recession, housing crisis, credit crisis, massive recession, and millions of workers laid off.


<sigh> You are lying again. The CBO did not add $700B to their updated projection to account for TARP. Evidence that you are lying can be demonstrated by your inability to link to a government report which states what you are now making up.

You can't because there is no such document. Stop making **** up out of whole cloth.



How many times do I need to show this to you?
CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

As posted the Bush budget was 2.9 trillion dollars and we have revenue of 2.45 trillion or a deficit of 450 billion dollars as the MSNBC Article states. Bush provided no economic stimulus package, Obama did. CBO projections included TARP and that is why Obama claimed he inherited a 1.2 trillion tollar deficit from Bush.

Now stop hijacking another thread and diverting from the Obama record. .4%GDP growth first qtr and 1.3% GDP growth second qtr. We are over 2 1/2 years after the "smartest man ever" took office and these are the results. 40% approval rating show that the American people are finally getting it, when will you?
 
Your insults aside, yes, you posted outdated information. You posted the initial projection which was made long before the economy tanked. After it tanked, the CBO adjusted their deficit projections to account for the recession, housing crisis, credit crisis, massive recession, and millions of workers laid off.


<sigh> You are lying again. The CBO did not add $700B to their updated projection to account for TARP. Evidence that you are lying can be demonstrated by your inability to link to a government report which states what you are now making up.

You can't because there is no such document. Stop making **** up out of whole cloth.



How many times do I need to show this to you?
CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

The truth about the so called "inherited deficit" that obama claims

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

TARP was a LOAN and was to be repaid. Any amount of TARP that wasn't repaid would be added the deficit and therein lies the difference between TARP and the Stimulus and thus is the distortion Obama is telling to the American taxpayer. The Obama cult buys the rhetoric while ignoring the facts which is something they always do. Obama supporters want so badly to believe this incompetent President that they continue to perpetuate the lies. We also now know that although 700 billion was authorized it wasn't spent therefore could not be part of the deficit. In addition one has to ask where the repayment went since it didn't reduce the deficit making most of the 2009 deficit Obama's.
 
As posted the Bush budget was 2.9 trillion dollars and we have revenue of 2.45 trillion or a deficit of 450 billion dollars as the MSNBC Article states. Bush provided no economic stimulus package, Obama did. CBO projections included TARP and that is why Obama claimed he inherited a 1.2 trillion tollar deficit from Bush.
The CBO did not add in $700B in TARP funds. You have no evidence they did ... you've presented no evidence they did ... you are making that up. You could read the CBO report I gave you and it would tell you, but it appears you prefer to continue spreading lies because for some reason, it just kills you that Obama inherited a $1.2T deficit.

Now stop hijacking another thread and diverting from the Obama record. .4%GDP growth first qtr and 1.3% GDP growth second qtr. We are over 2 1/2 years after the "smartest man ever" took office and these are the results. 40% approval rating show that the American people are finally getting it, when will you?
This isn't even an Obama thread, stop whining about diversions. :roll:
 
The CBO did not add in $700B in TARP funds. You have no evidence they did ... you've presented no evidence they did ... you are making that up. You could read the CBO report I gave you and it would tell you, but it appears you prefer to continue spreading lies because for some reason, it just kills you that Obama inherited a $1.2T deficit.


This isn't even an Obama thread, stop whining about diversions. :roll:

Regardless of what you believe, Obama didn't inherit a 1.3 trillion dollar defict, totally impossible just like the PROJECTED Clinton Surpluses that never happened. Fact is TAX REVENUE did increase AFTER the JFK, Reagan And Bush Tax cuts and the fact is Obama 2 1/2 years after taking office has been and continues to be a disaster.
 
The truth about the so called "inherited deficit" that obama claims

TARP was a LOAN and was to be repaid. Any amount of TARP that wasn't repaid would be added the deficit and therein lies the difference between TARP and the Stimulus and thus is the distortion Obama is telling to the American taxpayer. The Obama cult buys the rhetoric while ignoring the facts which is something they always do. Obama supporters want so badly to believe this incompetent President that they continue to perpetuate the lies. We also now know that although 700 billion was authorized it wasn't spent therefore could not be part of the deficit. In addition one has to ask where the repayment went since it didn't reduce the deficit making most of the 2009 deficit Obama's.
Seriously???

You seriously think you're going to find the "truth" from Dick Morris? Or was this another attempt at levity?


3h4yr5
. . . . . . . . . .
3h4yr5
. . . . . . . . . .
3h4yr5


The CBO did not add $700B for TARP raising in their expectation that we would have a $1.2T deficit. I gave you the link which indicates how much it was so stop lying and saying they added all $700B.

The expected deficit for FY2009 was $1.2T before Obama became president. The actual deficit for FY2009 was $1.4T. Obama is responsible for the $200B in ARRA funds which bumped the deficit up by $200B, Bush owns the rest.

That is what Obama inherited.
 
Regardless of what you believe, Obama didn't inherit a 1.3 trillion dollar defict, totally impossible just like the PROJECTED Clinton Surpluses that never happened.
I'm not going by what I believe, I'm going by CBO estimates.

They estimated a $1.2T deficit before Obama became president and their estimate was dead on.

Fact is TAX REVENUE did increase AFTER the JFK, Reagan And Bush Tax cuts and the fact is Obama 2 1/2 years after taking office has been and continues to be a disaster.
So tax revenue increased after a tax cut? So what? It wasn't the tax cuts which caused the increase; and after thousands of posts, you have still not offered your first shred of evidence that they did.
 
Seriously???

You seriously think you're going to find the "truth" from Dick Morris? Or was this another attempt at levity?


3h4yr5
. . . . . . . . . .
3h4yr5
. . . . . . . . . .
3h4yr5


The CBO did not add $700B for TARP raising in their expectation that we would have a $1.2T deficit. I gave you the link which indicates how much it was so stop lying and saying they added all $700B.

The expected deficit for FY2009 was $1.2T before Obama became president. The actual deficit for FY2009 was $1.4T. Obama is responsible for the $200B in ARRA funds which bumped the deficit up by $200B, Bush owns the rest.

That is what Obama inherited.

Seriously, do you know the difference between a loan and a grant? If it was a total expense why was most of it paid back and why wasn't that payback deducted from the deficit?

Let's face it, you have been brainwashed by an ideology that is a total and complete failure. I was too at one time but grew up. You will as well. Expected and Projected are two words that for some reason mean more to you yet you defend the projected and expected unemployment rate promoted by Romer. Guess it depends on what projection, right?

Obama helped create the mess he claims he inherited thus actually inherited nothing but always blames someone else for his own failures. The results are there for all to see but apparently the 40% that still approve of his job performance still are blind to those results thus I have to keep posting them.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).

1st Qtr GDP revised down to .4% Wow!
2nd Qtr GDP initial report 1.3%

Got to love those European socialist models that Obama embraces. Now add in the unemployment and you have another Greece. Congratulations Obama,, you are succeeding in changing America
 
Seriously, do you know the difference between a loan and a grant? If it was a total expense why was most of it paid back and why wasn't that payback deducted from the deficit?
You keep saying **** that you cannot prove. I've asked you to prove that it was mostly paid back and you still haven't.

I asked you to prove that Obama re-spent TARP funds paid back and you still haven't.

I've also shown you the breakdown of the FY2009 deficit and it did not include $700B for TARP. Stop saying it did.
Let's face it, you have been brainwashed by an ideology that is a total and complete failure. I was too at one time but grew up. You will as well.
If I'm the one who's brainwashed and I'm the one who hasn't grown up; how come you're the one who has to lie in order to prop up his positions?


Expected and Projected are two words that for some reason mean more to you yet you defend the projected and expected unemployment rate promoted by Romer. Guess it depends on what projection, right?
Again, their estimation was right on target.

The expected deficit for FY2009 was $1.2T before Obama became president. The actual deficit for FY2009 was $1.4T. Obama is responsible for the $200B in ARRA funds which bumped the deficit up by $200B, Bush owns the rest.
 
Seriously, do you know the difference between a loan and a grant? If it was a total expense why was most of it paid back and why wasn't that payback deducted from the deficit?

Let's face it, you have been brainwashed by an ideology that is a total and complete failure.

So the new conservatism, speaking of failure, is to protect the status quo at any cost, is that it?

The new conservatism seeks to reward those who brought the world to it's knees and nearly bankrupted several dozen of our largest financial companies, by allowing them to pay themselves bonuses and buy up other banks and assets, making them even bigger in the too big to fail category... Really?

Just as long as they pay it back... it's all fair and square...

I can't think of a more blatant admission of lost morals and principles. My very traditionally conservative grandfathers are rolling in their graves...

If there was ever a chance to reconcile the ideological rhetoric on the right with actual deeds, it was missed.

Responsibility and accountability are hallmarks of a "grown-up"... I see none of that here...
 
So the new conservatism, speaking of failure, is to protect the status quo at any cost, is that it?

The new conservatism seeks to reward those who brought the world to it's knees and nearly bankrupted several dozen of our largest financial companies, by allowing them to pay themselves bonuses and buy up other banks and assets, making them even bigger in the too big to fail category... Really?

Just as long as they pay it back... it's all fair and square...

I can't think of a more blatant admission of lost morals and principles. My very traditionally conservative grandfathers are rolling in their graves...

If there was ever a chance to reconcile the ideological rhetoric on the right with actual deeds, it was missed.

Responsibility and accountability are hallmarks of a "grown-up"... I see none of that here...

What the hell are you talking about? Protect the status quo? What does that have to do with whether or not TARP was a loan or a grant thus part of the deficit when much of it was paid back? It has nothing to do whether or not it was right or wrong because there is nothing we can do about it now. Fact 700 billion allocated, approximately 500 billion spent, most of it paid back thus it should have reduced the deficit but was recyled and not used to pay back the taxpayers.
 
What the hell are you talking about? Protect the status quo? What does that have to do with whether or not TARP was a loan or a grant thus part of the deficit when much of it was paid back? It has nothing to do whether or not it was right or wrong because there is nothing we can do about it now. Fact 700 billion allocated, approximately 500 billion spent, most of it paid back thus it should have reduced the deficit but was recyled and not used to pay back the taxpayers.
How many times are you going to change your position? That you have to keep changing it is a pretty good indication that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now you're claiming that $500B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 deficit, but a few days ago you said that only $410B was spent and that Obama had spent only $60B of that $410B. A couple of days before that, you attributed $600B of TARP to Obama. Before then you most of the $700 TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Before that you said all $700B of the TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Can you please stick to one position?

And I highly recommend you don't listen to Dick Morris. Morris is an idiot for claiming all $700B was applied to FY2009 as the Treasury recorded under half of that for FY2009, yet Morris doesn't seem to know that. And despite his (and your) fallacious claim that the $1.2T deficit projection made by the CBO before Obama became president was bumped of $700B to account for TARP, the CBO says of their $1.2T projection, only $180B was attributed to TARP, not $700B.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

And as to your claims that most was paid back and then re-spent by Obama ... first of all, you have still not proven that a single dime was respent. The closest you came was to an article where Obama questioned if that was an option, but you never produced a single link to where it actually occured. But even more damaging to your ever-changing position is the fact that most of the TARP money was not paid during FY2009. Despite your [false] claim that most of $500B was repaid, the treasury disagrees with you. Here is a report they put out in January, 2010; 3 months past the end of FY2009 and at that point, only $165B had been paid back.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives...ocuments105/December 105(a)_final_1-11-10.pdf

FY2009 Deficit = $1.4T

Bush = $1.2T
Obama = $0.2T

That is what Obama inherited.
 
How many times are you going to change your position? That you have to keep changing it is a pretty good indication that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now you're claiming that $500B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 deficit, but a few days ago you said that only $410B was spent and that Obama had spent only $60B of that $410B. A couple of days before that, you attributed $600B of TARP to Obama. Before then you most of the $700 TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Before that you said all $700B of the TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Can you please stick to one position?

And I highly recommend you don't listen to Dick Morris. Morris is an idiot for claiming all $700B was applied to FY2009 as the Treasury recorded under half of that for FY2009, yet Morris doesn't seem to know that. And despite his (and your) fallacious claim that the $1.2T deficit projection made by the CBO before Obama became president was bumped of $700B to account for TARP, the CBO says of their $1.2T projection, only $180B was attributed to TARP, not $700B.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

And as to your claims that most was paid back and then re-spent by Obama ... first of all, you have still not proven that a single dime was respent. The closest you came was to an article where Obama questioned if that was an option, but you never produced a single link to where it actually occured. But even more damaging to your ever-changing position is the fact that most of the TARP money was not paid during FY2009. Despite your [false] claim that most of $500B was repaid, the treasury disagrees with you. Here is a report they put out in January, 2010; 3 months past the end of FY2009 and at that point, only $165B had been paid back.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives...ocuments105/December 105(a)_final_1-11-10.pdf

FY2009 Deficit = $1.4T

Bush = $1.2T
Obama = $0.2T

That is what Obama inherited.

Pretty simple question, Sheik, was there a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit when Obama took office?

What kind of leader takes office with a PROJECTED deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars, doesn't cut it, and makes it worse? Budgets can be cut and budgets don't have to be spent, but Obama not only spent the money but recyled TAPR as the link I posted showed and of course you ignored.

Keep defending this empty suit, incompetent President. There results speak for themselves.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Pretty simple question, Sheik, was there a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit when Obama took office?

What kind of leader takes office with a PROJECTED deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars, doesn't cut it, and makes it worse? Budgets can be cut and budgets don't have to be spent, but Obama not only spent the money but recyled TAPR as the link I posted showed and of course you ignored.

Keep defending this empty suit, incompetent President. There results speak for themselves.

Why is it that nearly every right ideologue consistently confuses there, their and they're, to, too and two? This truly baffles me.

It also baffles me how cavalierly the events leading up to this mess unfolded with another empty suit, Bush. One only has to read the PNAC manifesto Rebuilding Americas Defenses to see that Bush did what he was told to do, he followed the playbook written by others to the letter. It goes back further than that, however, it's a notable period as we went from projected surplus to 8.4 trillion in debt under a single administration.

Elected on smaller government/less spending rhetoric, they did the exact opposite... they spent like drunken sailors and increased the size of government precipitously. What baffles me is that republican constituents weren't out for blood for this betrayal of some of their core principles.

The continuity of the problem must be taken as a whole, in honest and critical examination of the factual evidence. The entire timeline and all the elements that led us in ten years from the most admired and prosperous nation in history, to teetering on the brink of collapse. Now is not the time for nationalist justifications, party before country myopia, selective memory, bias or finger pointing.

Cheney even had the balls to say, "deficits don't matter"... TWICE, once in the Reagan admin, and again in the Bush admin.

Through massive and anti-competitive deregulation, ridiculous amounts of spending, turning a blind eye to the economy, propping up a once powerful manufacturing state into an illusory consumer state (now 70% of economy is just buying stuff made elsewhere), the Bush admin and it's six year rubber stamp congress set the stage and completed the first two acts of this mess. Of course, to pass anything, you need dems too... and they are responsible for their own contributions.

I find anyone on either side trying to justify their own party's incompetence and documented contributions to this, a most dangerous form of intellectual dishonesty.
 
Why is it that nearly every right ideologue consistently confuses there, their and they're, to, too and two? This truly baffles me.

It also baffles me how cavalierly the events leading up to this mess unfolded with another empty suit, Bush. One only has to read the PNAC manifesto Rebuilding Americas Defenses to see that Bush did what he was told to do, he followed the playbook written by others to the letter. It goes back further than that, however, it's a notable period as we went from projected surplus to 8.4 trillion in debt under a single administration.

Elected on smaller government/less spending rhetoric, they did the exact opposite... they spent like drunken sailors and increased the size of government precipitously. What baffles me is that republican constituents weren't out for blood for this betrayal of some of their core principles.

The continuity of the problem must be taken as a whole, in honest and critical examination of the factual evidence. The entire timeline and all the elements that led us in ten years from the most admired and prosperous nation in history, to teetering on the brink of collapse. Now is not the time for nationalist justifications, party before country myopia, selective memory, bias or finger pointing.

Cheney even had the balls to say, "deficits don't matter"... TWICE, once in the Reagan admin, and again in the Bush admin.

Through massive and anti-competitive deregulation, ridiculous amounts of spending, turning a blind eye to the economy, propping up a once powerful manufacturing state into an illusory consumer state (now 70% of economy is just buying stuff made elsewhere), the Bush admin and it's six year rubber stamp congress set the stage and completed the first two acts of this mess. Of course, to pass anything, you need dems too... and they are responsible for their own contributions.

I find anyone on either side trying to justify their own party's incompetence and documented contributions to this, a most dangerous form of intellectual dishonesty.

Comrade, do you have a solution to this mess? More regulations, bigger govt, massive spending, more entitlements? I defend capitalism and free enterprise and detest what this empty suit is doing right now. to blame Bush for the mess Obama claims he inherited is intellectually dishonest as Congress under Democrat control played a major role. Bush wasn't perfect but he beat the alternative.

The economy of this country wasn't pushed into a consumer state by Bush, it was there long before Bush as over 2/3rds is consumer spending and activity. It is intellectual dishonety to blame that on Bush and to claim that is the problem today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a consumer driven economy nor is there anything wrong with consumers having more take home pay because of tax cuts, that is except to liberals who see their power being taken away.

Many here want to judge Bush on 2008. That too is intellectually dishonest. Many here want to blame Bush for the results today which is also intellecually dishonest. Now all I see from you is an "intellectually" dishonest blaming both parties without offering a solution. Guess that is always the easy way out, whining about what happened without ever offering anything to prevent what happened.
 
How many times are you going to change your position? That you have to keep changing it is a pretty good indication that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now you're claiming that $500B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 deficit, but a few days ago you said that only $410B was spent and that Obama had spent only $60B of that $410B. A couple of days before that, you attributed $600B of TARP to Obama. Before then you most of the $700 TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Before that you said all $700B of the TARP funds were spent in FY2009. Can you please stick to one position?

And I highly recommend you don't listen to Dick Morris. Morris is an idiot for claiming all $700B was applied to FY2009 as the Treasury recorded under half of that for FY2009, yet Morris doesn't seem to know that. And despite his (and your) fallacious claim that the $1.2T deficit projection made by the CBO before Obama became president was bumped of $700B to account for TARP, the CBO says of their $1.2T projection, only $180B was attributed to TARP, not $700B.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

And as to your claims that most was paid back and then re-spent by Obama ... first of all, you have still not proven that a single dime was respent. The closest you came was to an article where Obama questioned if that was an option, but you never produced a single link to where it actually occured. But even more damaging to your ever-changing position is the fact that most of the TARP money was not paid during FY2009. Despite your [false] claim that most of $500B was repaid, the treasury disagrees with you. Here is a report they put out in January, 2010; 3 months past the end of FY2009 and at that point, only $165B had been paid back.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives...ocuments105/December 105(a)_final_1-11-10.pdf

FY2009 Deficit = $1.4T

Bush = $1.2T
Obama = $0.2T

That is what Obama inherited.

Page 19 of the CBO scoring of the Bush budget, again stop making a fool of yourself

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf
 
Comrade, do you have a solution to this mess? More regulations, bigger govt, massive spending, more entitlements? I defend capitalism and free enterprise and detest what this empty suit is doing right now. to blame Bush for the mess Obama claims he inherited is intellectually dishonest as Congress under Democrat control played a major role. Bush wasn't perfect but he beat the alternative.

The economy of this country wasn't pushed into a consumer state by Bush, it was there long before Bush as over 2/3rds is consumer spending and activity. It is intellectual dishonety to blame that on Bush and to claim that is the problem today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a consumer driven economy nor is there anything wrong with consumers having more take home pay because of tax cuts, that is except to liberals who see their power being taken away.

Many here want to judge Bush on 2008. That too is intellectually dishonest. Many here want to blame Bush for the results today which is also intellecually dishonest. Now all I see from you is an "intellectually" dishonest blaming both parties without offering a solution. Guess that is always the easy way out, whining about what happened without ever offering anything to prevent what happened.

You want solutions?

Cut the military back to prewar inflation adjusted dollars.

End entitlement abuses by those claiming disability that are not truly disabled. (by the way, this is in part a direct result of welfare reform). But ending entitlements altogether does not speak to the values and principles of the richest supposedly christian nation in history.

Improve healthcare services so that instead of turnstile transaction based medicine, we actually treat people in such a way as to keep them out of emergency rooms for chronic lifestyle choice induced disease, and simple problems like the flu, stomach pains, etc. Most emergency room visits could be handled much better in a doctors office with a physician who is familiar with the patient.

Stop foaming at the mouth every time someone says tax the rich is stealing. For 50 years (the most prosperous in our history) the rich were taxed at or above 70%. They are now paying 30-35 percent. Anything below 70% is gravy in my book. So raising it back to 50-60% is not stealing from them, it's just giving them less of a break. Get it? Raising the tax base until we are in the black is crucial, as much as you want to rail against it, it must be done. And there simply isn't enough to tax in the middle anymore. What middle there is left. The fact that wealth has been transferred from the middle to the very wealthy means that where ever that wealth is, middle or upper one percent, it should be taxed. Since there is no wealth left in the middle class, no savings, no property, no main street businesses... there is nothing to tax. Again, taxes must be raised.

To be more specific...

Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent
This proposal would reduce the size of the federal work force by 200,000, from its current level of more than 2 million. The chairmen of the fiscal commission noted that the federal work force peaked at about 2.3 million in the late 1960s and fell to a low of 1.8 million in 2000. “Under this proposal, the government could hire two new workers for every three who leave service,” the chairmen said. The proposal would not take effect until 2012.
$12 billion​

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe
“This option,” according to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, “would cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia at 100,000 personnel, which is 26 percent below the current level and 33 percent below the level planned for the future. All told, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn.” The option would also reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.
$25 billion​

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030.
$86 billion​

Tighten eligibility for disability
The costs of the disability insurance program, which is administrated by the Social Security Administration, have been rising rapidly. This option would cut disability spending by 5 percent by focusing on states with the loosest standards. Supporters note that growing numbers of workers are classified as disabled, though the average job is less physically taxing. Opponents worry that injured or ill workers with few good job prospects would be harmed.
$9 billion​

Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year
This option would allow the expiration, on Jan. 1, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.
$54 billion​

Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million
Currently, the top tax brackets starts at about $375,000. In past decades, it started at much higher income level, after inflation is taken into account. This option – which the House passed last year but the Senate did not – would create a new 5.4 percent surtax on income above $1 million.
$50 billion​

Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher
This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.
$136 billion​

Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
When the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.
$50 billion​

$422 billion saved on a projected 2015 shortfall of $418 billion.

You ask for solutions, I deliver.

By the way, anyone can play this game, here
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
or here
Budget Hero | Marketplace from American Public Media
 
So in January of 2009 when President Obama entered office, the projected deficit was $1.39 trillion. Thanks for sharing.

Which includes some of TARP which Obama supported and voted for. you cannot inherit what you helped create. Same question what kind of leader accepts a projected deficit and expands it? Obama lied about the inherited deficit and you bought it.
 
You want solutions?

Cut the military back to prewar inflation adjusted dollars.

End entitlement abuses by those claiming disability that are not truly disabled. (by the way, this is in part a direct result of welfare reform). But ending entitlements altogether does not speak to the values and principles of the richest supposedly christian nation in history.

Improve healthcare services so that instead of turnstile transaction based medicine, we actually treat people in such a way as to keep them out of emergency rooms for chronic lifestyle choice induced disease, and simple problems like the flu, stomach pains, etc. Most emergency room visits could be handled much better in a doctors office with a physician who is familiar with the patient.

Stop foaming at the mouth every time someone says tax the rich is stealing. For 50 years (the most prosperous in our history) the rich were taxed at or above 70%. They are now paying 30-35 percent. Anything below 70% is gravy in my book. So raising it back to 50-60% is not stealing from them, it's just giving them less of a break. Get it? Raising the tax base until we are in the black is crucial, as much as you want to rail against it, it must be done. And there simply isn't enough to tax in the middle anymore. What middle there is left. The fact that wealth has been transferred from the middle to the very wealthy means that where ever that wealth is, middle or upper one percent, it should be taxed. Since there is no wealth left in the middle class, no savings, no property, no main street businesses... there is nothing to tax. Again, taxes must be raised.

To be more specific...

Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent
This proposal would reduce the size of the federal work force by 200,000, from its current level of more than 2 million. The chairmen of the fiscal commission noted that the federal work force peaked at about 2.3 million in the late 1960s and fell to a low of 1.8 million in 2000. “Under this proposal, the government could hire two new workers for every three who leave service,” the chairmen said. The proposal would not take effect until 2012.
$12 billion​

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe
“This option,” according to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, “would cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia at 100,000 personnel, which is 26 percent below the current level and 33 percent below the level planned for the future. All told, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn.” The option would also reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.
$25 billion​

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013
Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030.
$86 billion​

Tighten eligibility for disability
The costs of the disability insurance program, which is administrated by the Social Security Administration, have been rising rapidly. This option would cut disability spending by 5 percent by focusing on states with the loosest standards. Supporters note that growing numbers of workers are classified as disabled, though the average job is less physically taxing. Opponents worry that injured or ill workers with few good job prospects would be harmed.
$9 billion​

Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year
This option would allow the expiration, on Jan. 1, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.
$54 billion​

Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million
Currently, the top tax brackets starts at about $375,000. In past decades, it started at much higher income level, after inflation is taken into account. This option – which the House passed last year but the Senate did not – would create a new 5.4 percent surtax on income above $1 million.
$50 billion​

Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher
This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.
$136 billion​

Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
When the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.
$50 billion​

$422 billion saved on a projected 2015 shortfall of $418 billion.

You ask for solutions, I deliver.

By the way, anyone can play this game, here
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
or here
Budget Hero | Marketplace from American Public Media

Thanks for the solutions, some of which I can support. I will respond in time but at least you offered some.
 
Pretty simple question, Sheik, was there a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit when Obama took office?
How many more times do I need to answer your questions? You keep asking the same ones over and over.

Before Obama was even president ... the CBO estimated George Bush's FY2009 budget would result in a shortfall of $1.2T. That's what Obama inherited. Obama inherited a budget that was expected to generate a $1.2T deficit. Capiche?

What kind of leader takes office with a PROJECTED deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars, doesn't cut it, and makes it worse? Budgets can be cut and budgets don't have to be spent, but Obama not only spent the money but recyled TAPR as the link I posted showed and of course you ignored.
We've been over this too. You don't understand how the government works. The president cannot withhold funds from a budget which the Congress passed and the president already signed into law.

Here, start here and maybe you'll learn something ...

Home Page

but Obama not only spent the money but recyled TAPR as the link I posted showed and of course you ignored.
You posted no link which made that claim. You posted a link which said Obama had wondered if that was a possibility; but that link never said he re-spent a penny of TARP repaid. Not to mention, the number of dollars repaid during FY2009 was somewhere between $70B (June/2009) and $165B (December/2009). Not even close to your BS claim of $500B.

And I'm still waiting for you to post a link that proves he respent TARP funds in FY2009. You haven't because you can't because he didn't. Simple as that.

Keep defending this empty suit, incompetent President. There results speak for themselves.
You mean the results which are better than every Republican president you ever voted for?

Nixon ............ +74%
Eisenhower ... +45%
Bush ............. +50%
Ford .............. +36%
Reagan ......... +35%
GHW Bush ..... +28%
Obama .......... +18%
Kennedy ........ -15%
Clinton ........... -23%
Carter ............ -24%
Johnson ......... -33%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Cheney even had the balls to say, "deficits don't matter"... TWICE, once in the Reagan admin, and again in the Bush admin.
You need a Conservative-to-English dictionary to understand Conservaspeak.

What Cheney meant was, deficits created by Republicans don't matter because their voodoo economics are good for the country.
 
How many more times do I need to answer your questions? You keep asking the same ones over and over.

Before Obama was even president ... the CBO estimated George Bush's FY2009 budget would result in a shortfall of $1.2T. That's what Obama inherited. Obama inherited a budget that was expected to generate a $1.2T deficit. Capiche?


We've been over this too. You don't understand how the government works. The president cannot withhold funds from a budget which the Congress passed and the president already signed into law.

Here, start here and maybe you'll learn something ...

Home Page


You posted no link which made that claim. You posted a link which said Obama had wondered if that was a possibility; but that link never said he re-spent a penny of TARP repaid. Not to mention, the number of dollars repaid during FY2009 was somewhere between $70B (June/2009) and $165B (December/2009). Not even close to your BS claim of $500B.

And I'm still waiting for you to post a link that proves he respent TARP funds in FY2009. You haven't because you can't because he didn't. Simple as that.


You mean the results which are better than every Republican president you ever voted for?

Nixon ............ +74%
Eisenhower ... +45%
Bush ............. +50%
Ford .............. +36%
Reagan ......... +35%
GHW Bush ..... +28%
Obama .......... +18%
Kennedy ........ -15%
Clinton ........... -23%
Carter ............ -24%
Johnson ......... -33%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As is typical of you, you ignored the CBO actual scoring of the Bush budget and in particular page 19 of that report that shows TARP included in the budget deficit projections and then again you obviously don't understand that you cannot inherit what you helped create. Obama supported TARP, voted for TARP and thus inherited what he helped create.

I then asked you what kind of leader accepts a projected deficit and then expands it. Since Obama took office he has continued his spending and eliminating the 2009 budget entirely still means he added 3 trillion to the deficit in his last two years. That is leadership to a liberal.

TARP Distribution of funds is listed on the NY Times website, notice the dates of distribution and yet you blame ALL of TARP on Bush and none on Obama, Typical biased partisan rhetoric.

The Obama record speaks for itself but you want to continue to focus on percentage change ignoring real numbers. You see that may make you feel good but it doesn't make the 24plus million unemployed or underemployed Americans feel very good at all. 40% of the people support Obama today and that says your percentage change isn't resonating. Keep it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom