A graph really says it - 2009 - 2019 deficit projections

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

Your argument might have merit, if Obama had any intent of making those cuts. But it's just your dumb ass, so the point is moot.

Projected defense spending through FY 2019 is $6.435 trillion. Now, that includes the $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' and I've already cut $400 billion there. But from the remainder I'll cut 10% off the top ...

That's another $586 billion I've cut. Woohoo!

My cuts are up to $1.986 trillion dollars !

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Just curious - so it's OK for your wife to lie to you so long as she isn't spending any more of your money?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Just curious - so it's OK for your wife to lie to you so long as she isn't spending any more of your money?

Well let's see, let's say I make 100K a year. My wife either

a) spends 110K per year, and doesn't quite tell me what she spends it on, moves it around in some accounts, overspends some on credit cards, but I get the statements each month and I know what she's spending it on

OR

b) B is completely honest about spending $180K per year, putting all the excess on credit cards.

What would YOU chose? I'd take A.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

Your argument might have merit, if Obama had any intent of making those cuts. But it's just your dumb ass, so the point is moot.

Projected defense spending through FY 2019 is $6.435 trillion. Now, that includes the $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' and I've already cut $400 billion there. But from the remainder I'll cut 10% off the top ...

That's another $586 billion I've cut. Woohoo!

My cuts are up to $1.986 trillion dollars !

Woo! Only 7.3 trillion to go! :roll:

 

[OrByte]

I'd say that if the republicans were any better at balancing a budget they would be in power.

But they weren't so they aren't.



How you like dem apples?

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

Actually he's really giving quite a bit away to wall street. Bush and Cheney would be proud. Oh, and he's giving away money that doesn't exist.

If you'd like I can reference NUMEROUS instances in this forum where many, many conservatives complained about his spending.

Agreed. I was referring to the more extremist faction of his supporters in this forum. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clear that up.:thumbsup:


"Bush and Cheney would be proud. Oh, and he's giving away money that doesn't exist."

The intent of Obama's "giving money away" as you put it is - (here we go again) - comparing apples and oranges when you consider why Bush was pushing for a bailout with absolutely NO STRINGS ATTACHED before he left office, whereby Bush ACTUALLY WAS attempting to "give money away" as you put it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Just curious - so it's OK for your wife to lie to you so long as she isn't spending any more of your money?

Well let's see, let's say I make 100K a year. My wife either

a) spends 110K per year, and doesn't quite tell me what she spends it on, moves it around in some accounts, overspends some on credit cards, but I get the statements each month and I know what she's spending it on

OR

b) B is completely honest about spending $180K per year, putting all the excess on credit cards.

What would YOU chose? I'd take A.

Go look up the phrases 'false dilemma', and 'false analogy'. You commit both.

Want to improve the analogy? Have the wife spend the $80K extra to not lose the home.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I think this says it all . First honest thing I have heard from Washington in 45 years.

I remember when I was a kid . One of the stories around was George chopping down the cherry tree and admitting to it. The Moral of the Story was Washington couldn't lie.

Well here the first trueth I have heard in ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...aklXhs&feature=related


This was close second tho!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pvU1iyT3c&NR=1

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

With McCain as President, we just would have the exact same economic stimulus deficits plus additional deficits for spending on some pet war.

These reactionary Republican hacks are just hypocrites. What they are completely incapable of understanding is that a large portion of America saw this economic crisis coming, warned against it even, and they stood in the way of doing anything out of partisan loyalty (or stupidity, depending on how you view partisanship in the first place). Now the crisis hits, BEFORE their precious Bush was even voted out of office, and they want to pin the blame on the people who warned against it and are trying to fix it. Hey, newsflash dipshits, you don't get to do that.
For the thickheaded, the whole situation is analogous to the passenger in a car warning the driver to hit the brakes or else they'll crash. The driver ignores the passenger, the car crashes, so the passenger takes over, fixes the car and tries to drive it, while the previous driver blames the passenger for causing the crash. In 2 words: fuck off. That's what America told the GOP in November, and as long as the Limbaugh brigades keep acting in this stupid immature irresponsible fashion, that is what America will keep telling them indefinitely. My only hope is that the GOP wises up or a new 3rd party rises up, and these reactionary extremists get marginalized.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

Your argument might have merit, if Obama had any intent of making those cuts. But it's just your dumb ass, so the point is moot.

Projected defense spending through FY 2019 is $6.435 trillion. Now, that includes the $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' and I've already cut $400 billion there. But from the remainder I'll cut 10% off the top ...

That's another $586 billion I've cut. Woohoo!

My cuts are up to $1.986 trillion dollars !

Woo! Only 7.3 trillion to go! :roll:

More rancor and acrimony without substantive contribution? It's so you. Your Agenda of Hate is Fail.


The budget projections include $226 billion because of the statistical probability of future major disaster costs. Damn these guys are good, but ...

I'm sorry. That's too transparent. I must assess a 15% penalty for honesty in budgeting. I'll take $34 billion here for my 'cut'.

The cost to continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is $2.681 trillion AND there are $850 billion in additional tax cuts and credits for citizens and businesses. In addition, there is $576 billion set aside to index AMT to inflation. Oh, my.

That's $4.107 trillion!

Now, there are $637 billion in "upper-income tax provisions dedicated to deficit reduction" so I will take the remainder $3.47 trillion and hold it temporarily in abeyance.


My cuts are now up to $2.020 trillion dollars !

And we, thanks to President Obama, are holding $3.47trillion in abeyance for tax cuts and budget reconciliation.

Wow.

 

[sportage]

You never know...
Just like small home computer technology, cell phones and ipods could not have been imagined 25 years ago, maybe by 2019 someone will have discovered the secret to gravity resistance flying cars, a cure for aids, cancer, and all heart disease. Space travel breakthroughs allowing human colonization?s on other planets.

New technologies where oil becomes useless and worthless as desert dirt.
In other words, economic unknowns no one can imagine now, that would moot our little problems of todays economy. Space aliens may decide to finally expose themselves and save us all with technology, medicine and giant robots. All by 2019.

 

[Vic]

Cell phones existed 25 years ago. So did digital music, the problem was that memory/storage was prohibitively expensive until just this past decade.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alchemize
2009-2019 CBO projected deficits

Of course they are much higher than the white house says. So much for Obama's transparency.

It's boggling that there are people defending this - and even saying not enough is being spent. I think as a country we'll never learn until the bubbles get so big that we truly go through a true collapse. Since no politicians on either side have the stones to truly face this issue, the only way out of this is to inflate the debt away, which will be a different economic disaster. Funny, a way to hedge against inflation is real estate....

I'm too old to worry about this shit. Where is my check?

 

[her209]

Does that graph include these numbers?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: her209
Does that graph include these numbers?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Already asked and answered. CBO = actual spend (for the bush years).

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

Your argument might have merit, if Obama had any intent of making those cuts. But it's just your dumb ass, so the point is moot.

Projected defense spending through FY 2019 is $6.435 trillion. Now, that includes the $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' and I've already cut $400 billion there. But from the remainder I'll cut 10% off the top ...

That's another $586 billion I've cut. Woohoo!

My cuts are up to $1.986 trillion dollars !

Woo! Only 7.3 trillion to go! :roll:

More rancor and acrimony without substantive contribution? It's so you. Your Agenda of Hate is Fail.


The budget projections include $226 billion because of the statistical probability of future major disaster costs. Damn these guys are good, but ...

I'm sorry. That's too transparent. I must assess a 15% penalty for honesty in budgeting. I'll take $34 billion here for my 'cut'.

The cost to continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is $2.681 trillion AND there are $850 billion in additional tax cuts and credits for citizens and businesses. In addition, there is $576 billion set aside to index AMT to inflation. Oh, my.

That's $4.107 trillion!

Now, there are $637 billion in "upper-income tax provisions dedicated to deficit reduction" so I will take the remainder $3.47 trillion and hold it temporarily in abeyance.


My cuts are now up to $2.020 trillion dollars !

And we, thanks to President Obama, are holding $3.47trillion in abeyance for tax cuts and budget reconciliation.

Wow.

Only 7.2 trillion to go!!!
:roll:

You're so full of shit, let's put your money where your mouth is? Let's put a wager on this, shall we? Let's base it on Obama's first term. You tell me how much you think he'll come out at...

 

[cliftonite]

I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Cause that's what really matters.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Cause that's what really matters.

If it didnt matter over the last 8 years why would it matter now?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Cause that's what really matters.

If it didnt matter over the last 8 years why would it matter now?

Obviously to you it doesn't.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Cause that's what really matters.

If it didnt matter over the last 8 years why would it matter now?

Obviously to you it doesn't.

And obviously it didnt to you.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

I understand, however my point is that CBO projections are hardly accurate 1-2 years out, let alone 10 years. CBO projections DO NOT account for policy changes. They assume policies remain static over the course of their projection. Hence, my point that Obama could adjust course next year and these projections would be moot.

Your right, due to policy changes, the actual deficit will be worse than either the WH or CBO project.

 

[ProfJohn]

In case you guys forgot quite a few of us were harping on Bush for his deficit spending.

That is by far the one thing the right was unhappy with.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cliftonite
I wonder where this concern was over the past 8 years?

Cause that's what really matters.

If it didnt matter over the last 8 years why would it matter now?

Obviously to you it doesn't.

And obviously it didnt to you.

I bet I could find at least 20 posts of mine in the last 8 years where I expressed dissatisfaction with Bush's spending. Still looking for one post in this thread from Obama's ilk.

Super-quick search found a few quotes from me:

10/11/2007

I liked Dean because he actually said he would *balance the budget*. I probably would have voted for him for that reason alone. Then we got a choice between Kerry and Bush who both said "I'll reduce the deficit to X by 20xx". We'll have the same thing in 08, because there is no viable candidate out there in either party that says they will balance the budget. I'll probably be voting 3rd party again.




1/25/2005
My thread: Balanced Budget: Why can't we make this happen?
/edit: and for the record, yes I do blame the repubs and bush admin. They could be pushing this, and I would prefer they push this over SS reform. I also blame the dems. More blame lies with the repubs since they are "in power".

Tax cuts shouldn't have been put in place without resulting spending cuts.

That's why we need consitutional limits to how our government manages it's debt.



12/30/2005
Clearly the republicans are primarily to blame for the current deficit spending. They hold the power.


1/7/2004
I'd only support a permanent tax cut if we also pass a balanced budget amendment...something nobody mentions anymore.

Obligatory footnote: I don't support deficit spending. Problem is, neither party will touch the true deficit explosion of SS & medicare. Defense is mere pennies on the dollar.


12/16/2003
You aren't going to tell me that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Pres is going to spend less, are you?

:shocked: Holy shit, did I not even begin to fathom...


1/26/2004
Oh here's a GREAT thread by DealMonkey!!!
Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion
DealMonkey: "Are we going for the all-time record here, or what?"

/here's a nice cup of STFU
//crickets

 

[JSt0rm]

alchemize: what do you propose we cut?