The Senator-elect from Illinois has dubious math skills

[Riot]

More GOP hypocrisy regarding deficit reduction and spending:

Sen. Elect Mark Kirk: Extending Jobless Benefits Is ‘Misguided,’ But Bush Tax Cuts Must Be Extended ‘No Matter What’

Unless Congress acts by tomorrow, 2.5 million Americans will lose their extended unemployment benefits, even though unemployment is still above nine percent and there are currently five unemployed workers for every job opening. In the last forty years, the U.S. has never allowed jobless benefits to expire with unemployment so high.

At the same time, Congress is also faced with the December 31st expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Today, in two separate interviews, Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-IL) tried to bolster his fiscal conservative credentials by saying that extending unemployment insurance without finding spending cuts to offset the extension would be “misguided” because of its effect on the deficit.

However, Kirk also called for extending all of the Bush tax cuts, “no matter what” the effect on the nation’s budget:

KIRK: We should extend the Bush tax cuts and make sure we don’t have a double-dip recession. And I have the honor to be the first of ninety-five new Republicans, fiscal conservatives, to help right our ship of state. [...]

Q: The first thing you’re talking about is deficit reduction and spending. Does that mean that right now, as of today, you’d be against extending the unemployment insurance?

KIRK: That’s right. You could extend it if you found a way to pay for it. And I voted for that in the past. But these proposals to extend unemployment insurance by just adding it to the deficit are misguided.

Kirk actually claimed that extending benefits — which costs $60 billion for one year, or $12.5 billion for a three-month extension — would lead to a Irish-style debt crisis, while glossing over the $4 trillion cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for a decade ($830 billion of which goes to only the richest two percent of Americans).

Even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough saw through Kirk’s double-talk, asking, “if [the tax cuts] are not paid for though, do we not risk going the way, as you said, of Greece and Ireland?”

As the New York Times editorial board wrote, “opponents would have you believe that the nation cannot afford to keep paying unemployment benefits: a yearlong extension would cost about $60 billion. The truth is, we cannot afford not to… Without jobs, there is inadequate spending, and that means ever fewer jobs. A wide range of private and government studies show that unemployment benefits combat that vicious cycle by ensuring that families can buy the basics.”

Of course, as The Wonk Room explained, Kirk is no stranger to fraudulent fiscal conservative rhetoric.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

More GOP hypocrisy regarding deficit reduction and spending:

Let me guess? Think Progress.com

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Let me guess? Think Progress.com

You guys are hysterical - yes, it was TP. But Kirk was talking on Morning Joe with Scarborough. Are you saying that Kirk didn't say those things?

Or you just want to express your dislike the news outlets that are covering it?

[dellinger63]

and hypocrisy?

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=21

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You guys are hysterical - yes, it was TP. But Kirk was talking on Morning Joe with Scarborough. Are you saying that Kirk didn't say those things?

Or you just want to express your dislike the news outlets that are covering it?

Why didn't you simply quote Kirk w/o TP's biased commentary, which made up 75% of the post?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Why didn't you simply quote Kirk w/o TP's biased commentary, which made up 75% of the post?

Because the background information about what and when things expire are integral to the story?

You're kinda making a laughable complaint here, Dell, that you don't like the messenger. Okay, you don't like the messenger. That wasn't the point or the focus of the story.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and hypocrisy?

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=21

What are you saying is hypocritical in this? "The other thing the Dems are doing is gearing up a better PR machine. They are notoriously lousy at publicizing their successes. Passed largest middle-class tax cut in history - Obama, Pelosi Reid Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid"

[Riot]

Here Dell - here's the original video of Kirk's interviews, untainted by any TP background. We'll let his own words speak for themselves. First being a two-faced hypocrite on Fox News, then on Morning Joe (MSNBC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hryuS...layer_embedded

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What are you saying is hypocritical in this? "The other thing the Dems are doing is gearing up a better PR machine. They are notoriously lousy at publicizing their successes. Passed largest middle-class tax cut in history - Obama, Pelosi Reid Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid"

They raised the budget by 500 billion in 09 (submitted by Bush $3.1 Trillion) v. $3.6 Trillion Obama '10. And not to be outdone raised it another 200 billion for 2011 ($3.8 Trillion)

SO AFTER RAISING THE BUDGET BY 700 BILLION YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR PASSING THE LARGEST BUDGET CUT ( 1 BILLION )? THOSE WHO BUY THIS ARE NOT DONKEYS BUT ASSES!

THAT'S NOT ONLY HYPOCRITICAL IT'S AN INSULT AND A CON-JOB

US Budget Info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

They raised the budget by 500 billion in 09 (submitted by Bush $3.1 Trillion) v. $3.6 Trillion Obama '10. And not to be outdone raised it another 200 billion for 2011 ($3.8 Trillion)

SO AFTER RAISING THE BUDGET BY 700 BILLION YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR PASSING THE LARGEST BUDGET CUT ( 1 BILLION )? THOSE WHO BUY THIS ARE NOT DONKEYS BUT ASSES!

THAT'S NOT ONLY HYPOCRITICAL IT'S AN INSULT AND A CON-JOB

US Budget Info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

It's a nice thread hijack, but what do you think about Mark Kirk? What do you think about saying you only will renew unemployment if it's paid for, but you'll raise the deficit 700 billion to give tax cuts to the rich, unpaid for, "No matter what" ?

Doesn't that make Kirk sound very beholden to the special interests of the wealthiest 2% of Americans, while he's willing to literally let other of his fellow Americans - millions - starve at Christmas because they can't find work during the biggest recession since the great Depression?

America has NEVER done that to it's citizens before - turned it's back on our citizens while unemployment is so high. You're okay with that? Yes or no?

Now, to get to your thread hijack: Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to cut 700 billion from the budget deficit. You won't give credit for 1 billion, certainly you must appreciate and endorse cutting 700 billion. The GOP is blocking that. Are you for that, or against that? You want to cut 700 billion, or not?

If your only criteria and desire for a budget at the brink of serious world-wide depression and then a major recession is the black and white simplicity of lower numbers, please go take Governmental Finance 101 to see the disaster that would have lead to.

There are parts of the budget (Bush especially) that were not negotiable in the face of a major depression. And let's look again at what the budget contributed to the deficit, how it got there after the Clinton years, and where it's going, okay?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here Dell - here's the original video of Kirk's interviews, untainted by any TP background. We'll let his own words speak for themselves. First being a two-faced hypocrite on Fox News, then on Morning Joe (MSNBC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hryuS...layer_embedded

Some people believe it or not feel it unfair to tax one American at one percentage of income (some none at all) and another at a rate double or triple that percentage. How about instead of reforming our health care system (ranked tops by the King of Saudi Arabia among others) lets reform our tax system making it fair for all. National sales tax at a even percentage.

ie. the rich man will pay more in taxes for say a new Bugatti while the poor man will pay far less though an inflated price for his clunker (if he can find one courtesy of Pres. Obama's 3 billion cash for clunkers program.) Thus a much, much lower tax and in reality the Bugatti buyer at 5% would pay in tax 15K while the clunker buyer would pay $250 bucks on a $5K car. In the end the rich would pay far more than the poor and everyone would be EQUAL under the law which should be the ultimate target anyway. No?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now, to get to your thread hijack: Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to cut 700 billion from the budget deficit. You won't give credit for 1 billion, certainly you must appreciate and endorse cutting 700 billion. The GOP is blocking that. Are you for that, or against that? You want to cut 700 billion, or not?]

Of course I would support a 700 billion cut but conveniently wording a 700 billion income tax raise as a cut doesn't make it so and some are smart enough to figure that out. The 700 billion-tax raise would then be spent on more cash for clunker like programs before it was received, GUARANTEED! The credit cards must be taken away and cut up immediately!

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Of course I would support a 700 billion cut but conveniently wording a 700 billion income tax raise as a cut doesn't make it so and some are smart enough to figure that out.

Not that smart. When you have a set income level coming in, then you decide you don't need that amount of income any more (lets say 700-billion), yet you do not cut your spending by 700 billion in order to live at your new lower income level - you get in trouble.

Bush gave tax cuts, he cut the country's income, but those cuts were completely unfunded. Oh yeah, and two unfunded wars. That put us in deep, deep debt. We are in trouble.

So yes - the income tax should go back to what it used to be, for the top 2% of wealthiest Americans, affecting only their income over $250K, because it will cut our America's budget deficit by 60%!

BTW - you do realize that both the Bush temporary tax cuts were set to expire at this time purposely, right? Figuring there would be a Democratic President?

The credit cards must be taken away and cut up immediately!

If only that was the rallying cry by the GOP during Bush's unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars, that greatly put us into this mess.

BTW, I am in favor of a flat rate income tax. I am not in favor of a national sales tax at a flat percentage, because right now that percentage would have to be between 21% and 26% to provide us equal income. I don't want to pay that on food, cars, etc.

[dellinger63]

[quote=Riot;728660]

So yes - the income tax should go back to what it used to be, for the top 2% of wealthiest Americans, affecting only their income over $250K, because it will cut our America's budget deficit by 60%!
.

If it's as simple as that, how about a bi-partisan agreement to raise taxes on those over 250K (as you say 700 billion 60% of the deficit) while the Dems cut 466 billion or better yet the 700 billion they have raised the by budget since Obama took over. That way according to your numbers the deficit would be gone if the Dems agreed to pick up the remaining 40% or 466 billion or if Dems agreed to cut the budget by only what they have raised it by we'd have a 234 billion dollar surplus that would be bound to paying down the national debt. In about 80 years at that pace we'd have paid off the National Debt currently nearing 14 Trillion or 3 Trillion in just interest. Maybe when Biden said we need to spend to prevent going bankrupt he meant we need to spend to get the bankruptcy over as we have a $14,000 billion debt, $3,000 billion just in interest and can only afford 234 billion a year as payment. Dems. need to explain to their supporters that the gravy train is over. Then bring on higher taxes and let’s right the ship.

Or wonder if a bankruptcy court would hear the case? I know a family in a similar situation say 140K in debt who could only afford $2,340 after living expenses in payments would be the easiest BK case ever filed! Guess they’d have to rent out or sell a national forest and the many buildings, courthouses etc. if they owned them so they’d probably be forced in that direction. .

[Riot]

Some of the budget items (some of the 700 billion you talk about, and the vast majority of both Bush's last increase, and Obama's) were short-term stimulus funding that will not be continued (see how the chart goes down after 2010? See the light blue area of the chart that goes away?)

The administration already cut 1 billion. You laughed at that. A billion here, a billion there, it adds up to real money. Not renewing those unfunded tax cuts would make a huge 700 billion dent to start. Getting out of the wars is the next hunk. What's left is a reasonable budget, compared to our historical norms, we can live easily with (and yes, we should always continue budget prudence)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Some of the budget items (some of the 700 billion you talk about, and the vast majority of both Bush's last increase, and Obama's) were short-term stimulus funding that will not be continued (see how the chart goes down after 2010? See the light blue area of the chart that goes away?))

Then someone's graph is wrong. Mine comes from the White House.

[Riot]

Then someone's graph is wrong. Mine comes from the White House

Your understanding is what is wrong. My graph is a graph (from Congressional Budget Office stats) of the deficit over time and the major contributions to it.

Your graph is the 2009 budget.

Those are two different things.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your understanding is what is wrong. My graph is a graph (from Congressional Budget Office stats) of the deficit over time and the major contributions to it.

Your graph is the 2009 budget.

Those are two different things.

Wouldn't your lefty group have to obtain budget information from the CBO to determine what was spent on what. ie Iraq and Afghan war v. say Recovery measures v. future Government pension obligations v. increased health care spending. Ooops CBPP.org left those factors out. Wonder if that was on purpose?

BTW When the graph is titled Legacy of Bush Policies? Enough said.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Wouldn't your lefty group have to obtain budget information from the CBO to determine what was spent on what. ie Iraq and Afghan war v. say Recovery measures v. future Government pension obligations v. increased health care spending. Ooops CBPP.org left those factors out. Wonder if that was on purpose?

BTW When the graph is titled Legacy of Bush Policies? Enough said.

Stop with the "lefty group", that's absurd and silly. There is nothing wrong with that graph, it's appeared in multiple sources for the past year and it's been vetted.

Are you crazy? The stuff is there in front of your eyes - Look at the graph! The itemization cost over time of the two wars are listed, the various recovery measures are listed, and the white at the bottom contains the regular routine stuff exclusive of the itemized stuff at the top.

Geeshus cripes. Dell - your graph is the budget for one year. The graph I posted is the debt we owe. Two different things. I have no idea what you are trying to say with your budget graph, other than to list a bunch of random gross cuts you would make off the top of your head.