Democrats Plot 2nd Stimulus

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus
I find it funny that all the numbers people are throwing out are clearly inaccurate as non of them include the 410 billion dollar omnibus spending bill.

Are you just pretending or do you really not know that the $410 billion omnibus you're talking about was a collection of FY09 appropriations bills that Bush was supposed to sign before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2008?

They were a collection of bills. But they were never presented to Bush to sign. And the democrats increased the funding for many things well beyond any kind of adjustment for inflation.

Did the Democrats increase them from $0 to $410 billion as Patranus is trying to say?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Patranus
I find it funny that all the numbers people are throwing out are clearly inaccurate as non of them include the 410 billion dollar omnibus spending bill.

You don't even know what that means ---- :laugh:

I know exactly what it means. Congress passed a 410 billion dollar spending bill and it was signed by Obama.
H.R. 1105
If the government is running a deficit and then the government decides to spend more money, that additional spending adds to the deficit.

Oh my God; you're being totally serious :Q

[Edit] You should really read this: The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction

I mean no offense, but if you genuinely believe that an omnibus appropriations act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, belongs to the President who took office four months into that fiscal year, then you can only be either ignorant of the appropriations process or intellectually dishonest.

Did Obama sign it or not?
Yes or no?
Exactly. I don't care what the money was spend on. The fact of the matter is federal spending was 410 billion dollars less before Obama signed the legislation.

You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

Did Bush not sign nine of twelve appropriations acts in 2008 because the American people expected...

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Department of Interior, Environment, , Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Legislative Branch, Department of State, Foreign Operations, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Homeland Security

...to cease to exist past March 2009?

Did Bush not include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he expected both to be completed by March 2009?


Like I said, please read this if you'd like to have a real conversation about budgeting: The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction

I believe Bush omitted the wars from the budget since day 1.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus
I find it funny that all the numbers people are throwing out are clearly inaccurate as non of them include the 410 billion dollar omnibus spending bill.

Are you just pretending or do you really not know that the $410 billion omnibus you're talking about was a collection of FY09 appropriations bills that Bush was supposed to sign before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2008?

They were a collection of bills. But they were never presented to Bush to sign. And the democrats increased the funding for many things well beyond any kind of adjustment for inflation.

Did the Democrats increase them from $0 to $410 billion as Patranus is trying to say?

No not from 0-410, but some of the appropriation bills saw upwards of a 20% increase in funding that was originally asked for by Bush. There was definately some bloat added in Feb. I have heard overall about 8% bigger than what Bush budgeted for in the Fall.

 

[Patranus]

Lets not ignore this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi...0930/pl_politico/27732

or this
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/af.../02/14/afx6053111.html

or this
http://sify.com/finance/fullst...n_for_gov%27t_VIP_jets

But I am sure none of those has *anything* to do with the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit...right?

How about this?

The deficit will hit $482 billion in the 2009 budget year that will be inherited by Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the White House estimated Monday. That figure is sure to rise after adding the tens of billions of dollars in additional Iraq war funding it doesn't include, and the total could be higher yet if the economy fails to recover as the administration predicts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-preside_n_115335.html

Thank you huffington post....

So if the deficit was 482 billion when Bush left office.....and is 1.4 trillion dollars now.....gosh, that is almost an increase of a TRILLION dollars....

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Did the Democrats increase them from $0 to $410 billion as Patranus is trying to say?

No not from 0-410, but some of the appropriation bills saw upwards of a 20% increase in funding that was originally asked for by Bush. There was definately some bloat added in Feb. I have heard overall about 8% bigger than what Bush budgeted for in the Fall.

Let's assume the high end and say that the entire thing was a 20% increase (it wasn't). That would mean that the President added $68 billion to those appropriations. That's still explains less than 5% of the $1.4 trillion budget deficit and that still means that deficit comes a little bit of socialist Obama and a whole lot of decrease in collections

[Edit] Cleaned up some nesting

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Lets not ignore this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi...0930/pl_politico/27732

or this
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/af.../02/14/afx6053111.html

or this
http://sify.com/finance/fullst...n_for_gov%27t_VIP_jets

But I am sure none of those has *anything* to do with the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit...right?

How about this?

The deficit will hit $482 billion in the 2009 budget year that will be inherited by Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the White House estimated Monday. That figure is sure to rise after adding the tens of billions of dollars in additional Iraq war funding it doesn't include, and the total could be higher yet if the economy fails to recover as the administration predicts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-preside_n_115335.html

Thank you huffington post....

So if the deficit was 482 billion when Bush left office.....and is 1.4 trillion dollars now.....gosh, that is almost an increase of a TRILLION dollars....

There's the stimulus in the second link of which, again, $200 billion has been spent. Nope, not enough to explain the 1.4 trillion deficit yet.

Your first and third links are a joke. They increased the lege budget by $260 million and bought $200 million worth of planes, and that was what led to a deficit of $1,400,000 million? Seriously?

A deficit is expenditures - RECEIPTS

If you lose $1 trillion in receipts, don't be surprised when your deficit increases by ...gosh... $1 trillion

 

[Shallok]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So if the deficit was 482 billion when Bush left office.....and is 1.4 trillion dollars now.....gosh, that is almost an increase of a TRILLION dollars....

No, the deficit at the time of that article, July 28th, 2008, was estimated by the White House to be 482 billion. In January, before Obama took office, the CBO estimated the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Text

In other words, you are, as usual, wrong.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Shallok

Originally posted by: Patranus
So if the deficit was 482 billion when Bush left office.....and is 1.4 trillion dollars now.....gosh, that is almost an increase of a TRILLION dollars....

No, the deficit at the time of that article, July 28th, 2008, was estimated by the White House to be 482 billion. In January, before Obama took office, the CBO estimated the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Text

In other words, you are, as usual, wrong.

Funny, the deficit didn't hit 1 trillion until JULY...Try again
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...trillion-2009713141700

Don't like that link? How about this one...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8071739


Or this one....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...2D26.DTL&type=politics

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Shallok

Originally posted by: Patranus
So if the deficit was 482 billion when Bush left office.....and is 1.4 trillion dollars now.....gosh, that is almost an increase of a TRILLION dollars....

No, the deficit at the time of that article, July 28th, 2008, was estimated by the White House to be 482 billion. In January, before Obama took office, the CBO estimated the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Text

In other words, you are, as usual, wrong.

Funny, the deficit didn't hit 1 trillion until JULY...Try again
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...trillion-2009713141700

Don't like that link? How about this one...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8071739


Or this one....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...2D26.DTL&type=politics

Yes. The deficit increased mostly because collections decreased by so much.

What would you have proposed to keep collections from dropping $1 trillion?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I know this is a quaint concept... but what about shrinking the size and cost of government and reducing the confiscatory tax burden on Americans? (The ones who still pay taxes)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Did the Democrats increase them from $0 to $410 billion as Patranus is trying to say?

No not from 0-410, but some of the appropriation bills saw upwards of a 20% increase in funding that was originally asked for by Bush. There was definately some bloat added in Feb. I have heard overall about 8% bigger than what Bush budgeted for in the Fall.

Let's assume the high end and say that the entire thing was a 20% increase (it wasn't). That would mean that the President added $68 billion to those appropriations. That's still explains less than 5% of the $1.4 trillion budget deficit and that still means that deficit comes a little bit of socialist Obama and a whole lot of decrease in collections

[Edit] Cleaned up some nesting

Ok? Am I arguing all the 1.4 trillion is on Obama?????

 

[Budmantom]

I thought Obama said that the stimulus worked better than expected.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I thought Obama said that the stimulus worked better than expected.

He meant better then Bush's tax cut stimulus.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I thought Obama said that the stimulus worked better than expected.

He meant better then Bush's tax cut stimulus.

Is that what Carter meant?

 

[Shallok]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Funny, the deficit didn't hit 1 trillion until JULY...Try again

In reality, the deficit hitting 1 trillion in July in no way invalidates the CBOs January estimate of 1.2 trillion for the total FY2009 deficit. It is really sad how intellectually bankrupt you appear to be, though, to be fair, you are likely merely dishonest.

To reiterate for you: in January, before Obama became President, the CBO estimated the FY 2009 deficit at 1.2 trillion--not including any potential effects on the deficit that Obama might have. If you want to discuss what Obama has done to the deficit you need to look at what was estimated prior to his taking office and what actually occurred--Jan estimate $1.2 trillion, final estimate $1.4 trillion. Of course even that is not so cut and dry, as the final FY2009 figures decreased from previous estimates in part due to decreased costs related to items that were set in place prior to Obama taking office--like the takeover of freddie and fannie being less expensive than previously estimated (by $200 billion or so).

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Let's assume the high end and say that the entire thing was a 20% increase (it wasn't). That would mean that the President added $68 billion to those appropriations. That's still explains less than 5% of the $1.4 trillion budget deficit and that still means that deficit comes a little bit of socialist Obama and a whole lot of decrease in collections

[Edit] Cleaned up some nesting

Ok? Am I arguing all the 1.4 trillion is on Obama?????

LOL. Patranus is

I'm glad to know that you can see the budget for what it is.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I know this is a quaint concept... but what about shrinking the size and cost of government and reducing the confiscatory tax burden on Americans? (The ones who still pay taxes)

You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I know this is a quaint concept... but what about shrinking the size and cost of government and reducing the confiscatory tax burden on Americans? (The ones who still pay taxes)

You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo


You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.

There is far less gnashing of teeth among Democrats about fixing the deficit (during the worst recession since the Great Depression) than among Republicans.

Has a single Republican in the House or Senate who goes after Obama for said deficit proposed a bill to end the tax cuts? Despite being in the minority, the Republicans could absolutely end tax cuts for the rich if they led the charge.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo


You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.

There is far less gnashing of teeth among Democrats about fixing the deficit (during the worst recession since the Great Depression) than among Republicans.

Has a single Republican in the House or Senate who goes after Obama for said deficit proposed a bill to end the tax cuts? Despite being in the minority, the Republicans could absolutely end tax cuts for the rich if they led the charge.

So it's the Republicans fault...gotcha. You are correct though..."There is far less gnashing of teeth among Democrats about fixing the deficit". The deficient is clearly only useful as political talking point to bash Bush and Republicans...actually doing something to fix it...well....that's different. I smell hypocrisy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I know this is a quaint concept... but what about shrinking the size and cost of government and reducing the confiscatory tax burden on Americans? (The ones who still pay taxes)

You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.

Good to know you are 100% behind slashing (or not reauthorizing) the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for FY2011. That should cut the 10-year deficit $2.7 trillion.

If you will agree to reducing the 'overseas contingency operations' or troop strength, to 30k by 2013 in Iraq and Afghanistan we can cut another $1 trillion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I know this is a quaint concept... but what about shrinking the size and cost of government and reducing the confiscatory tax burden on Americans? (The ones who still pay taxes)

You are kidding, right?

The ""confiscatory tax burden on Americans"" is at its lowest point since 1950 (that would be 'the lowest in 59 years for the math challenged).

The projected Federal deficit for FY2010 is $1.25 trillion with estimated total revenues of $2.33 trillion.

Total receipts will represent 15.8% of GDP --- the lowest level since 1949-1950. FY2010 is the first year we will feel the "full impact" of the Bush/GOP tax cuts.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010. Only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.

I will again say that Butterbean is intentionally lying.


Seriously.

Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.

Good to know you are 100% behind slashing (or not reauthorizing) the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for FY2011. That should cut the 10-year deficit $2.7 trillion.

If you will agree to reducing the 'overseas contingency operations' or troop strength, to 30k by 2013 in Iraq and Afghanistan we can cut another $1 trillion.

Please don't deflect...I'm trying to get to the root of what you think as you're the one playing the blame game. So...which is it...Republicans who have failed us...or Democrats who have failed us? Or perhaps the deficit is not problem after all? Please don't hurt yourself trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If they really want to provide a stimulus, they should end the H-1B and L-1 visa programs that displace hundreds of thousands of Americans from often knowledge-based, college-education-requiring jobs. Then they should deport the illegal aliens, end illegal immigration, and put a moratorium on legal immigration. Then they should enact a zero-dollar trade deficit policy and limit the amount of land and capital that non-Americans can purchase (forcing them to spend their American dollars on American goods and services instead--"real trade") while imposing tariffs and/or an import credits system to enact it.

Also, transforming the nation's health care system from its wasteful 17% of GDP (that leaves tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health care while also having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies while also burdening businesses with benefits concerns) into a far more efficient socialized model might help.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

It's in reverse chronological order, so start at the bottom. Notice that none of the 12 appropriations bills for FY09 was signed into law?

Obama since coming into office has signed:

* $787 B ARRA aka "Stimulus*" (of which less than $200 B has been spent as of the end of FY09, by Obama)
* Continuing resolution for FY09 (Bush did not pass a FY09 budget so this is still his)
* FY2009 Omnibus (ditto)
* War supplemental (Bush played the fun budget trick of not including the cost to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY09 defense budget, so that he could make it look like more fiscally responsible than he actually was. So this is his)
* $3 B in two chunks for Cash for Clunkers (totally Obama's)

And there's your facts.

God, I wish I could sticky this.

if less than 200 billion of the original stimulus has been spent why are we not spending it rather than passing more stimulus. stimulus doesn't work if it's not spent.

still haven't seen an answer as to what passing more stimulus without spending it is supposed to accomplish.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

There is far less gnashing of teeth among Democrats about fixing the deficit (during the worst recession since the Great Depression) than among Republicans.

Has a single Republican in the House or Senate who goes after Obama for said deficit proposed a bill to end the tax cuts? Despite being in the minority, the Republicans could absolutely end tax cuts for the rich if they led the charge.

So it's the Republicans fault...gotcha. You are correct though..."There is far less gnashing of teeth among Democrats about fixing the deficit". The deficient is clearly only useful as political talking point to bash Bush and Republicans...actually doing something to fix it...well....that's different. I smell hypocrisy.

Correct, but you draw the wrong conclusions.

The Democrats only point to Bush and co.'s role in creating the deficit when on defense. They're much more concerned with digging the U.S. out of the biggest financial hole the world's seen since the Great Depression.