Spending

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Nobody, except the Govt., makes a budget that includes a deficit!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Nobody, except the Govt., makes a budget that includes a deficit!

To quote Charlie Sheen: "WINNING"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Nobody, except the Govt., makes a budget that includes a deficit!

Except people who have mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt.

And just remember the Republican way to deal with your debt: when that mortgage balloon payment comes due, be sure to deal with it by cutting your income by working less hours, and spend less on food to cover the cost of your "budget deficit". You can fix your budget deficit by spending cuts and income giveaways! Slash your way to prosperity.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Except people who have mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt.

And just remember the Republican way to deal with your debt: when that mortgage balloon payment comes due, be sure to deal with it by cutting your income by working less hours, and spend less on food to cover the cost of your "budget deficit". You can fix your budget deficit by spending cuts and income giveaways! Slash your way to prosperity.

"less is more" Riot!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Except people who have mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt.

And just remember the Republican way to deal with your debt: when that mortgage balloon payment comes due, be sure to deal with it by cutting your income by working less hours, and spend less on food to cover the cost of your "budget deficit". You can fix your budget deficit by spending cuts and income giveaways! Slash your way to prosperity.

Your use of "income giveaways" is bass ackwards. It's the citizens who earn income and the government that leeches, not the other way around.

Tax cuts are not income giveaways.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Your use of "income giveaways" is bass ackwards. It's the citizens who earn income and the government that leeches, not the other way around.

Tax cuts are not income giveaways.

exactly

[Danzig]

my total debt, mortgage, car, etc, doesn't add up to above a years salary for me and my husband. now, that's budgeting....ah, if only the govt could do the same. oh, and zero credit cards! i highly recommend it.

alexander hamilton knew how to make your debt work for you. no doubt he's turning in his grave.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Your use of "income giveaways" is bass ackwards. .

No, it's not. It is precisely correct. In accordance with our Constitution, we all contribute financially to our common good, we budget for it, obtained from taxes. That is our - America's - income. And you agree to that by being an American citizen. You pay taxes. It's part of your responsibility as an American.

Giving our countries income away, then screaming "Alas, how did we get poor?! We must cut spending", is ignorant of the totality of what got us here. Our countries income has crashed since 2000, down more than 10%, when we as a country have grown in population - thus we should be rolling in money, with less taxes being paid by all.

We are not. Ask yourself why.

And don't attribute it only to Bush's unfunded wars and unfunded Medicare giveaway. It was his unfunded tax cuts, too. In fact, that is the majority of what makes up our deficit. You can't spend what you don't have - so having a budget planned over years, but then giving the money away, so you have less money to both meet your budget and continue paying off the deficit, was unbelievably stupid. Where was all the public screaming about our deficit in the last 12 years, as it spiraled up out of control into trillion-land? As more corporate loopholes were placed into being, so this past year the top corporations in this country paid no income tax (and some even got billions back in credits) And that put us exactly where we are now.

If you are living on $100 a week to make your expenses, you don't cut your income to $70 a week then start bitching about spending as the cause of your troubles.

Once again: Clinton left us with a budget surplus and a rapidly decreasing deficit. Let's see what has made our deficit massive:



And tell me again, how well income giveaways - Bush giving away our income in the form of tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals - helped prevent our getting to this disastrous point in our countries financial existence? How great Reaganomics, "trickle down", has worked in the past? It's a proven bunch of hooey that has not worked.

And yet, unbelievably R- Paul Ryan wants to lower taxes for the wealthy from 35% to 25% in this next budget. How DARE he. The CBO has scored the Republican Ryan budget as adding trillions - trillions - to our debt over 10 years.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/


an interesting article..have no idea if it's accurate or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/


an interesting article..have no idea if it's accurate or not.

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire cuts our deficit in half in 10 years.

That's why the left was so very angry at Obama when he reniged on his campaign promise, and continued the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years, as a giveaway to the Republicans to get START signed. That's why they were screaming to at least let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in the recession.

Two years ago, the Tea Party was yelling at town hall meetings, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Well, they voted for the very people - the Republican budget - the party that has now publicly announced they want to eliminate those Tea Party folks Medicare completely in 10 years, and put the elderly back into poverty, and back into no health care. (It is a constant amazement to me, how some people vote against their own desires and self-interest). Oh, yeah, and use that increase in our income from saving that Medicare money, to finance the newest tax cuts for the wealthy.

Oh, pay down the debt? Let's have another fake Washington orgasm over clipping a few billion out of 0.17% of our budget, and say we did well, and pat ourselves on the back and call it historic.

[dellinger63]

Once again Riot's graph is sorely outdated if not distorted and does not take into consideration the budgets since Bush left office.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-fy11-spending

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Once again Riot's graph is sorely outdated if not distorted and does not take into consideration the budgets since Bush left office.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-fy11-spending

Your article doesn't even mention the deficit. Your article is about budgets in a superficial way, and doesn't even mention deficit contributions.

And no, the graph is not distorted, and not really outdated with the exception of Libya (considering the PPACA is self-funded to a net zero-zero, and the only major legislative thing to pass) It is accurate for when it was made, and surely is 100% accurate to reflect the Bush year's contribution to the debt and Obama's first year.

You can keep dissing it, but I suggest that if you want to do that, you point out which actual figures should be adjusted or that you feel are inaccurate. The references for the graph are at the cbpp website.

Or, you can list the deficit additions actually made since 2009 (hard to do, as we just are finishing that budget) with the extrapolations out over 20 years, and add them on top of the figures in the graph. Give us some hard figures. Just dismissing the entire graph by throwing random attack stuff against the wall to see if something sticks is silly and unproductive.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your article doesn't even mention the deficit. Your article is about budgets in a superficial way, and doesn't even mention deficit contributions.

And no, the graph is not distorted, and not really outdated with the exception of Libya (considering the PPACA is self-funded to a net zero-zero, and the only major legislative thing to pass) It is accurate for when it was made, and surely is 100% accurate to reflect the Bush year's contribution to the debt and Obama's first year.

You can keep dissing it, but I suggest that if you want to do that, you point out which actual figures should be adjusted or that you feel are inaccurate. The references for the graph are at the cbpp website.

Or, you can list the deficit additions actually made since 2009 (hard to do, as we just are finishing that budget) with the extrapolations out over 20 years, and add them on top of the figures in the graph. Give us some hard figures. Just dismissing the entire graph by throwing random attack stuff against the wall to see if something sticks is silly and unproductive.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...al-us-economy/

and if you want to continue to blame Bush for Obama's budgets give Reagan and Bush Sr. the credit for Clinton's surplus.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, it's not. It is precisely correct. In accordance with our Constitution, we all contribute financially to our common good, we budget for it, obtained from taxes. That is our - America's - income. And you agree to that by being an American citizen. You pay taxes. It's part of your responsibility as an American..

That would be ideal, unfortunately fewer than 10% of 'we' pay for 90% of collected taxes. So 'we' actually 'all' don't contribute financially to our common good do 'we'?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire cuts our deficit in half in 10 years.

That's why the left was so very angry at Obama when he reniged on his campaign promise, and continued the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years, as a giveaway to the Republicans to get START signed. That's why they were screaming to at least let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in the recession.

Two years ago, the Tea Party was yelling at town hall meetings, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Well, they voted for the very people - the Republican budget - the party that has now publicly announced they want to eliminate those Tea Party folks Medicare completely in 10 years, and put the elderly back into poverty, and back into no health care. (It is a constant amazement to me, how some people vote against their own desires and self-interest). Oh, yeah, and use that increase in our income from saving that Medicare money, to finance the newest tax cuts for the wealthy.

Oh, pay down the debt? Let's have another fake Washington orgasm over clipping a few billion out of 0.17% of our budget, and say we did well, and pat ourselves on the back and call it historic.

i also disagreed with lowering ss payments-for what?

[Antitrust32]

if we talk presently we need to call them the Bush/Obama tax cuts if we want to be factually correct. The tax cuts are on both guys since the Savior Obama signed on to extend them.

You are going no where if you keep on thinking Obama has been better than Bush... same old same old, he even bombs countries like Bush. They are basically the same guy.

And if Riot keeps on highlighting points of her speech, I'm outta here. ugh.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

That would be ideal, unfortunately fewer than 10% of 'we' pay for 90% of collected taxes. So 'we' actually 'all' don't contribute financially to our common good do 'we'?

To get to Riot's ideal "we" is easy enough: make one tax rate for everybody, regardless of income, with no deductions. A Flat Tax is as close to fair as you will ever get, since it would be proportional in all cases.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...al-us-economy/

and if you want to continue to blame Bush for Obama's budgets give Reagan and Bush Sr. the credit for Clinton's surplus.

Yes, Dell, let's give all the Presidents, especially Reagan and Bush W., credit for putting us deep in debt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsro...-with-the-debt "How did our national debt get so big?"

Obama is indeed responsible for his own stimulus - we were in a recession, recall? Where stimulus is a good thing? - which is still less than the debt Bush W left us from his wars and unfunded tax cuts.

The point is: it is unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars that have skyrocketed our debt.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

That would be ideal, unfortunately fewer than 10% of 'we' pay for 90% of collected taxes. So 'we' actually 'all' don't contribute financially to our common good do 'we'?

Which is why tax loopholes for corporations and individuals need to be eliminated, so the biggest corporations in the country don't pay zero tax. And things like the Bush Tax cuts need to be eliminated. Why are you against that, then?

Rather than following ridiculous plans like the Ryan proposal, which will decrease the tax rate for only the wealthy, and increase corporate tax breaks.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

To get to Riot's ideal "we" is easy enough: make one tax rate for everybody, regardless of income, with no deductions. A Flat Tax is as close to fair as you will ever get, since it would be proportional in all cases.

For corporations and individuals The lobbyists on Capitol Hill will never, ever allow that to occur, unfortunately.

So, the President is going to speak within a couple hours. He'll say the Bush tax cuts need to expire (2 years too late, but yes). The Republicans have already said they will not consider anything that raises taxes. That's beyond ignorantly stupid (but the GOP has never been good at finances or taxes)

If Obama suggests lowering benefits for Medicare and Medicaid, raising ages, etc. (don't forget he just eliminated some Medicare excess to help pay for the PPACA) he's screwed with the left of his party. They will attack him far more severely than any on the right.