Visualizing Obama Spending Cuts

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

IGNORE ME THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Riot has no problems attacking me. I guess what is good for the goose isnt good for the gander. Riot doesnt have me brainwashed like it seems that other people are. Riot always asked me for evidence on something and I gave it to Riot on occasions. Does Riot always give evidence? I was told that it wasnt sufficient enough. where is Riot's evidence I would say other words about Riot and another individual but I will use restrain and wont do that.

Poor Nascar. You're the victim. Poor you. Other people make your life miserable. Riot. Muslims. Hispanics. Poor you.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

IGNORE ME THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Riot has no problems attacking me. I guess what is good for the goose isnt good for the gander. Riot doesnt have me brainwashed like it seems that other people are. Riot always asked me for evidence on something and I gave it to Riot on occasions. Does Riot always give evidence? I was told that it wasnt sufficient enough. where is Riot's evidence I would say other words about Riot and another individual but I will use restrain and wont do that.

dude, get a grip. you think because you're a vet that you have every right to go on the attack against everyone who disagrees with you on anything. jms, riot are just two of those...since when is 'have a bourbon' proof of anything? or 'youre a _____'. no, wait, it's 'your a ____'. you don't post links, you don't post facts, you post a bunch of bs. you jumping into a conversation adds nothing to the dialogue. and right now i do have one fellow on ignore, but you amuse me, so i guess for now i won't bother adding you. and you might want to go back to the start of this thread and read back thru it, and then tell me who attacked whom.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Danzig

dude, get a grip. you think because you're a vet that you have every right to go on the attack against everyone who disagrees with you on anything. jms, riot are just two of those...since when is 'have a bourbon' proof of anything? or 'youre a _____'. no, wait, it's 'your a ____'. you don't post links, you don't post facts, you post a bunch of bs. you jumping into a conversation adds nothing to the dialogue. and right now i do have one fellow on ignore, but you amuse me, so i guess for now i won't bother adding you. and you might want to go back to the start of this thread and read back thru it, and then tell me who attacked whom.

Whatever Dude. When you see something I post dont look at or read it. IGNORE IT.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

Poor Nascar. You're the victim. Poor you. Other people make your life miserable. Riot. Muslims. Hispanics. Poor you.

If you say so.

[Princess Doreen]

A drop in the bucket compared to the debt, but it's a start.

A recent poll from Heritage Foundation -

[Riot]

Strangely, in spite of what is claimed by the right-wing Heritage, those spending cuts have nothing at all to do with the majority of the money spent in the past 4-6 years. Nor does it address what caused our deficits, and what is continuing to contribute to the deficit. Here's what has caused our deficits:



BTW, the majority of TARP has already been paid back, with us making a profit of $53 billion in interest.

Those spending cuts come out of only 14-17% of our budget (the rest is defense, entitlements, etc - which are not touched, apparently, by Heritage's recommendations) are are simply the usual right-wing culture wars on education, FDA, EPA, etc.

Nothing new there. Except that if conservatives really wanted to touch that stuff, they would have already done so when they were in control. They don't like to cut, they like to spend. How Dems got to be known as the party of spend is a mystery, as the last 40-60 years show the GOP excelling at it.

In fact, that reminds me, the current GOP in the House said that everything in the budget must be funded - except for tax cuts. The GOP loves giving unfunded tax cuts. Cut the governments revenue, but don't stop spending - put it on the credit card. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II - they all did it. Uniquely a GOP phenomenon, and that's exactly what gave us our huge trillions in deficit today.

We could eliminate the majority of our deficit - that huge dark gold area-under-the-curve on the graph, above - by simply allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire. Obama should not have just caved to the GOP on that. Bringing home the troops from the wars will get another good chunk.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Poor Nascar. You're the victim. Poor you. Other people make your life miserable. Riot. Muslims. Hispanics. Poor you.

Clearly Non compos mentis.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Whatever Dude. When you see something I post dont look at or read it. IGNORE IT.

where would the fun be in that?

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Danzig

dude, get a grip. you think because you're a vet that you have every right to go on the attack against everyone who disagrees with you on anything. jms, riot are just two of those...since when is 'have a bourbon' proof of anything? or 'youre a _____'. no, wait, it's 'your a ____'. you don't post links, you don't post facts, you post a bunch of bs. you jumping into a conversation adds nothing to the dialogue. and right now i do have one fellow on ignore, but you amuse me, so i guess for now i won't bother adding you. and you might want to go back to the start of this thread and read back thru it, and then tell me who attacked whom.

Another thing I will not let anyone tell me that I didnt earn my pension or excellent medical insurance when they didnt spend a day in the military. They want to run thier mouths off. Have they spend six months or up to two years away from thier family? Have they been in a combat situation where they might be shot at? Yet they still want to say that the retirees dont deserve a pension or excellent medical insurance? Im sure no one put a gun to them and said they couldnt join the military. If they wanted a job where they could get a pension maybe they should of did some more research.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Another thing I will not let anyone tell me that I didnt earn my pension or excellent medical insurance when they didnt spend a day in the military. They want to run thier mouths off. Have they spend six months or up to two years away from thier family? Have they been in a combat situation where they might be shot at? Yet they still want to say that the retirees dont deserve a pension or excellent medical insurance? Im sure no one put a gun to them and said they couldnt join the military. If they wanted a job where they could get a pension maybe they should of did some more research.

I've not seen one person on this board who has ever said veterans didn't earn their pension or their insurance. In fact, I've seen people here - including me - say directly to you that you've earned those benefits, and you deserve them. People have only said that veterans had those benefits, and it was paid for by our taxes to the government.

The victim card you play is really old.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Another thing I will not let anyone tell me that I didnt earn my pension or excellent medical insurance when they didnt spend a day in the military. They want to run thier mouths off. Have they spend six months or up to two years away from thier family? Have they been in a combat situation where they might be shot at? Yet they still want to say that the retirees dont deserve a pension or excellent medical insurance? Im sure no one put a gun to them and said they couldnt join the military. If they wanted a job where they could get a pension maybe they should of did some more research.

it was your choice to join the military and stay long enough to retire. no one owes you a thing for that. you earned your retirement, good for you. it doesn't preclude you from criticism, it doesn't make you a martyr for your cause. props to you for serving, but quit thinking it entitles you to post whatever you wish to whomever you desire just because they disagree with you politically. it doesn't give you carte blanche. and you aren't better than anyone else here because you served in active duty and others chose not to.
it's a volunteer force, as it should be. others serve in other ways, including paying the taxes that paid you during active duty, and pays your retirement, and paid for your gear, your housing, your medical care, etc, etc. quit acting as tho anyone disagreeing with you is an attack on a soldier, or the military, or is a way of saying you didn't earn what you've got.
personally, i think 20 years is too short a time to qualify for retirement, but that's just me.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Strangely, in spite of what is claimed by the right-wing Heritage, those spending cuts have nothing at all to do with the majority of the money spent in the past 4-6 years. Nor does it address what caused our deficits, and what is continuing to contribute to the deficit. Here's what has caused our deficits:



BTW, the majority of TARP has already been paid back, with us making a profit of $53 billion in interest.

Those spending cuts come out of only 14-17% of our budget (the rest is defense, entitlements, etc - which are not touched, apparently, by Heritage's recommendations) are are simply the usual right-wing culture wars on education, FDA, EPA, etc.

Nothing new there. Except that if conservatives really wanted to touch that stuff, they would have already done so when they were in control. They don't like to cut, they like to spend. How Dems got to be known as the party of spend is a mystery, as the last 40-60 years show the GOP excelling at it.

In fact, that reminds me, the current GOP in the House said that everything in the budget must be funded - except for tax cuts. The GOP loves giving unfunded tax cuts. Cut the governments revenue, but don't stop spending - put it on the credit card. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II - they all did it. Uniquely a GOP phenomenon, and that's exactly what gave us our huge trillions in deficit today.

We could eliminate the majority of our deficit - that huge dark gold area-under-the-curve on the graph, above - by simply allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire. Obama should not have just caved to the GOP on that. Bringing home the troops from the wars will get another good chunk.

We went through this before. The producer of the graph is the CBPP a left wing think tank.

Here try this one out. It's simply the deficit. Now if Bush tax cuts existed pre Obama as did his wars etc etc. Something else is way out of wack starting in 2009. From just over 400 billion to 1,850 billion? WTF happened other than what was going on when Bush was President? We f'd up and went with the belief we need to spend to prevent going broke. With that obvious failure behind us let's take a huge breath and return to 2008 spending that many Dems obviously felt was excessive, as a starting point.

[Riot]

We went through this before. The producer of the graph is the CBPP a left wing think tank.

LOL - yeah, you complained before. But the graph uses valid CBO numbers. The numbers are not false, and you never discredited those CBO numbers on it.

So what is your point about "left wing think tank"?

By the way, the graph you posted uses CBO numbers, too. And they appear to be rather the same numbers as the graph I posted

Except your graph shows slightly less deficit projection, and is far kinder to Obama's presidency.

But unlike my graph, you didn't reveal what "think tank" created your graph. Where did you get your graph?

Here try this one out. It's simply the deficit.

Why post a graph of just the deficit? Nobody is debating there's a huge deficit, or what those numbers are estimated to be. That wasn't the point of my post.

The point of my graph was to show, not just the amount of the deficit, but where it came from and what spending caused it

If you have a different graph that shows where the deficit came from, what contributed to it, that might be useful for you to post. Rather than just another graph saying we have a deficit.

As you can see, stimulus spending was a very small portion of what contributed to our deficit. And we were in a major recession, on the brink of a depression - every major economist agreed it was needed, and it helped.

The primary cause of our deficit was giving up our income by giving unfunded tax cuts (we kept spending the same amount after our income dropped) and starting two wars that were unfunded, too.

Bush put the vast majority of that deficit on the credit card.

You say why does your graph have the estimate from two years ago getting worse in '09?

Well, your graph is old, it doesn't include the actual from '09. But notice that both graphs agree, and follow the same projection.

But think back, when was the first stimulus approved? November of '08. When were those monies finally spent? Not in the end of '08. They were spent over '09 and '10. When was TARP approved, when was it spent? The bank bailouts?

So that's why the estimate gets worse in '09. The majority of those monies were approved to be spent - dedicated - before Obama was even elected in November.

We can budget cut the heck out of the 14-17% of our budget that is discretionary spending - losing education, losing jobs programs (in a recession? crazy!), losing the EPA, losing the FDA - that's not all we have to do. So add in cutting Medicare & Defense. Still not enough.

Or, we could do it a simple way, not losing any of the above. Let the taxes on the rich - let's go up to over 1 million - go back up. And get out of wars, and cut defense. That's the majority of it.

With that obvious failure behind us let's take a huge breath and return to 2008 spending that many Dems obviously felt was excessive, as a starting point.

You mean spending before the stimulus, TARP, and unfunded wars? The discretionary spending that is only 14-17% of our budget? That is not what caused, or what is continuing to cause, these huge deficits. That's the fallacy of the "just return to 2008 budget" argument - the spending during those years was due to unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, then the stimulus and bailouts piled on top of that growing disaster and shortfall. Look at the shortfall over years due just to the Bush tax cuts!

Returning to the level of the small portion of the budget that didn't cause that is nice - but won't help much. Except it does attack the programs conservatives hate (NPR, EPA, education, police, teachers, etc)

See the white area on the bottom of my graph? The "deficit without these factors" area? That's what that discretionary budget covers. That's what the GOP and the Dems are trying to cut.

And again, every major economist says yes, we did need to do the two stimulus, etc, and they worked - so calling that a "failure" is pretty unsupported.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - yeah, you complained before. But the graph uses valid CBO numbers. The numbers are not false, and you never discredited those CBO numbers on it.

So what is your point about "left wing think tank"?

By the way, the graph you posted uses CBO numbers, too. And they appear to be rather the same numbers as the graph I posted

Except your graph shows slightly less deficit projection, and is far kinder to Obama's presidency.

But unlike my graph, you didn't reveal what "think tank" created your graph. Where did you get your graph?

Why post a graph of just the deficit? Nobody is debating there's a huge deficit, or what those numbers are estimated to be. That wasn't the point of my post.

The point of my graph was to show, not just the amount of the deficit, but where it came from and what spending caused it .

Your graph is projections interpreted by CBPP using CBO numbers and my graph is from the CBO with projections made by the CBO. See the difference? The point is the CBO graph proved yours to be WAY off and actually fraudulent. The wars were going on way before 2009, the Bush tax cuts were in place since the end of 2001 for the first and 2003 for the second. During Bush's 7 years following the devastating 9-11 attacks he went from just over a a 100 billion deficit to just over 400 billion and thus increased the deficit by 300 billion over 7 years. He did fight two wars, all with the same Bush tax cut that now for Obama is unaffordable and again overcame 9-11.

Meanwhile not to be outdone Obama has taken the deficit to a whole new level going from 400 billion to 1,850 billion IN ONE YEAR. that’s 1,450 billion or almost five times what Bush did seven years in ONE YEAR!!!! Less war same tax cuts. What gives? Now Obama is trying to recreate himself as Reagan? Please.

[Riot]

Your graph is projections interpreted by CBPP using CBO numbers and my graph is from the CBO with projections made by the CBO. See the difference? The point is the CBO graph proved yours to be WAY off and actually fraudulent.

LOL - no, it didn't. That's absurd The numbers are virtually the same! Give me your link to that CBO page you got your graph from, and I'll prove it to you. But I don't have to - that graph has been out in the public sector for two years now, used by many, and nobody has "proved it way off and actually fraudulent".

You're funny - you think that just saying something makes it come true <vbg>

But as I said, that's moot. Nobody is debating the deficit numbers. I'm not saying your graph is wrong. It isn't. It's virtually the same as mine. I'm saying my graph shows what the breakdown of that debt is. Yours does not.

Meanwhile not to be outdone Obama has taken the deficit to a whole new level going from 400 billion to 1,850 billion IN ONE YEAR.

And what makes that up that number, Mr. CBO? C'mon, prove your contention. Tell me what makes up that 1850 billion. Itemize it.

Sorry - you don't get away with putting Bushes expenses for war, tax cuts, and the first stimulus and TARP in Obama's lap.

As I said, which you ignored completely, the first stimulus, the wars, the tax cuts, TARP, were all expanding the deficit, growing it, before the November election. Bushes first stimulus money, TARP, etc. didn't even get spent until after Obama was elected.

That debt was talked about BEFORE the election, BTW, by both McCain and Obama - knowing they would enter office and be saddled with it.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've not seen one person on this board who has ever said veterans didn't earn their pension or their insurance. In fact, I've seen people here - including me - say directly to you that you've earned those benefits, and you deserve them. People have only said that veterans had those benefits, and it was paid for by our taxes to the government.

The victim card you play is really old.

Whatever

[Riot]

US National Debt history by President. And other interesting facts about the national debt - who did what to $$$

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[Princess Doreen]

Bush II's 8-year administration saw a rise in the National Debt of approximately $4.35 trillion. The first 4 years of his administration had a Democratic House and Senate.

In 2 years 2009 - 2010, the Obama administration has seen a rise in the National Debt of $3.54 trillion, and that's with a Democratic House & Senate.

Is it the President's fault spending is so high during their administration or is it those who control the House and Senate?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 Obama
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 Bush II
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Clinton

[dellinger63]

Riot can you add Jimmy Carter into that graph? Give him the praise he deserves.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

How Dems got to be known as the party of spend is a mystery,

.

Because the Republicans are the party of spend-too-much

and Democrats are the party of spend-even-more