Federal deficit "revised"

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll mention it again, though it usually just gets ignored. The president DOES NOT set the tax code. That is the job of the legislature. Part of the reason the deficit is skyrocketing is that congress can't get off its lazy collective ass and pass a budget. Thus, government agencies spend whatever they want and just send the receipts directly to China. Stop relying on the president (and those who aren't even president yet) to do the job of congress and maybe we can actually turn things around.

Buzzz. Fail

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... the candidates stance on the deficit.

McCain is talking about a balanced budget, he may be able to do it, but at least he is talking about it.

Obama however does not even TALK about a balanced budget. He has NO plan to balance the budget and NO plan to cut spending. All he has are plans to increase spending.

And before you give me the "Obama is going to eliminate wasteful spending" BS please remember that McCain is saying the same thing, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and everyone else going back to Washington.

McCain's war with Iran and Venezuela will destroy our economy though. Obama's plan is to INVEST for long term gain.

Invest? WTF does that mean? Redistribute?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

McCain is talking about a balanced budget, he may be able to do it, but at least he is talking about it.

Obama however does not even TALK about a balanced budget. He has NO plan to balance the budget

So you support a liar? McCain has no chance in hell of balancing it. When was the last time a republican balanced the budget?

Under Clinton. How quickly you forget.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre
What we need certainly is not another 4 years of tax-cut and spend. But we don't need 4 years of tax and spend either. What we need is someone who will temporarily tax and cut. Cut, cut, cut and more cut.

Its not going to happen. Adjusted for inflation the federal budget has not decreased since 1931

I am hoping for change?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And McCain wants to keep the current Bush tax-cut-and-spend policies that will add another $4 trillion to our national debt.

More of the same.

Interesting. So does Obama. He still thinks tax cuts on the wealthy are bad!! BUT not having them, especially during a recession would hurt the economy. He also wants to push his new tax cuts on top of not rescinding the old ones, putting us more and more in debt. Good plan Obama! :thumbsup:

I'm for keeping the tax cuts in place, just thought I would point out the hypocrisy and oddly enough, his admittance of the fact that tax increases don't help - but hurt the economy. Whether we are fragile or not, but especially when we are fragile.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush?s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

?Even if we?re still in a recession, I?m going to go through with my tax cuts,? Obama said. ?That?s my priority.?

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

?I think we?ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,? Obama said on ?This Week? on ABC. ?The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we?re fragile.? - Associated Press

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre
What we need certainly is not another 4 years of tax-cut and spend. But we don't need 4 years of tax and spend either. What we need is someone who will temporarily tax and cut. Cut, cut, cut and more cut.

Its not going to happen. Adjusted for inflation the federal budget has not decreased since 1931

I am hoping for change?

I know 🙁 Me too. It aint gonna happen until the 40% of Americans that DO vote learn to not listen to ad campaigns to make their voting decisions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And McCain wants to keep the current Bush tax-cut-and-spend policies that will add another $4 trillion to our national debt.

More of the same.

And Obama wants to spend even more than McCain.

You have no proof of this, however we do have proof of the GOP way of doing things the past 8 years.

Why stay the course when you know how bad it has been?

Why do you hate this country?

 

[theeedude]

Don't forget the 200B+ the government is gonna pump into Freddie and Fannie. Dollar is going into the toiled in the long term, I may use this dollar rally to start a short position.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Buzzz. Fail

Really? So who dictates how much each agency can spend? Which agency do you work for? While it is different for different agencies, (NIH and NSF, for example, keep fixed funding in the absence of a budget, whereas the VA gets "emergency funding" to buy just about whatever it wants.) what I said is by and large correct.

And do you have any comment on the rest of my post? The part that's even more important?

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain's (or should I say Bush's) tax plan adds $1 trillion more to our national debt than Obama's tax plan.

WTF does it matter once you start talking trillions?? At least with McCain you've got a documented record of actually trying to cut waste. With Obama, you've got...a rookie who's going to get literally run over.

No thanks. I'll stick with the devil that I DO know. That, and the fact I want divided gov't to keep the a$$hole extremists on both parties in check.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll mention it again, though it usually just gets ignored. The president DOES NOT set the tax code. That is the job of the legislature. Part of the reason the deficit is skyrocketing is that congress can't get off its lazy collective ass and pass a budget. Thus, government agencies spend whatever they want and just send the receipts directly to China. Stop relying on the president (and those who aren't even president yet) to do the job of congress and maybe we can actually turn things around.

Clinton shut down the government twice in the '90s so congress could pass a budget.
If it worked for Clinton in the '90s, why can't Bush choose to shutdown the government rather than spend his way into oblivion?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Lothar
Clinton shut down the government twice in the '90s so congress could pass a budget.
If it worked for Clinton in the '90s, why can't Bush choose to shutdown the government rather than spend his way into oblivion?

I wish he would. I would write directly into the Constitution that the government cannot operate until it passes a budget. Vote for me in '16.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll mention it again, though it usually just gets ignored. The president DOES NOT set the tax code. That is the job of the legislature. Part of the reason the deficit is skyrocketing is that congress can't get off its lazy collective ass and pass a budget. Thus, government agencies spend whatever they want and just send the receipts directly to China. Stop relying on the president (and those who aren't even president yet) to do the job of congress and maybe we can actually turn things around.

Clinton shut down the government twice in the '90s so congress could pass a budget.
If it worked for Clinton in the '90s, why can't Bush choose to shutdown the government rather than spend his way into oblivion?

I remember that... I was working for MWR at the time, and couldn't figure out why I didn't get the day off.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... the candidates stance on the deficit.

McCain is talking about a balanced budget, he may be able to do it, but at least he is talking about it.

Obama however does not even TALK about a balanced budget. He has NO plan to balance the budget and NO plan to cut spending. All he has are plans to increase spending.

And before you give me the "Obama is going to eliminate wasteful spending" BS please remember that McCain is saying the same thing, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and everyone else going back to Washington.

That's because Obama isn't lying to you. It won't be possible to balance our budget in 4 years with either candidate.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... the candidates stance on the deficit.

McCain is talking about a balanced budget, he may be able to do it, but at least he is talking about it.

Obama however does not even TALK about a balanced budget. He has NO plan to balance the budget and NO plan to cut spending. All he has are plans to increase spending.

And before you give me the "Obama is going to eliminate wasteful spending" BS please remember that McCain is saying the same thing, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and everyone else going back to Washington.

dude your such a fucking tool. I responded to you in another thread that obama is talking about a balanced budget and gave links and everything because you requested them. Why are you such a fuck?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Buzzz. Fail

Really? So who dictates how much each agency can spend? Which agency do you work for? While it is different for different agencies, (NIH and NSF, for example, keep fixed funding in the absence of a budget, whereas the VA gets "emergency funding" to buy just about whatever it wants.) what I said is by and large correct.

And do you have any comment on the rest of my post? The part that's even more important?

When George Bush took office the operating surplus of the Federal Gov't was $230 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt was $17 billion that year.

This fiscal year the operating deficit of the Federal Gov't will exceed $400 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt may well exceed $700 billion.

So much for Republican VooDoo Economics.

When budget legislation is not passed prior to Oct 1, the Congress will adopt temporary continuing resolutions which fund governmental operations at previous fiscal year levels.

Since we have been in a state of perpetual war for the last 5+ years I'm sorry that you cannot see the need to raise expenditures for veterans programs.

You look like a big dumb ass for opposing increases in veterans programs. Your attitude is typical of the compassionate conservatism of the Republican Party - like that of your double-talking hypocrite McCain....

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.

You and the Republican Party have failed our veterans miserably. Your dog and pony lip service to veterans needs is despicable. You FAIL. When you wrap yourself up in that American flag I hope you choke on it

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You and the Republican Party have failed our veterans miserably. Your dog and pony lip service to veterans needs is despicable. You FAIL. When you wrap yourself up in that American flag I hope you choke on it

They don't care. All they care about is "thems and theirs" and they try to make this fit some kind of noble way of running things. Like any free thinker actually believes this shit. It's such a joke and they know it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
I like how this logic goes. If the economy is doing well, we don't want to mess that up by raising taxes. If the economy is doing poorly we can't make it worse by raising taxes. It never seems to come up in this circular line of thought that it's too late for that. We've already spent the money and now we're taxing our future... with interest.

Nope, that's how not the logic goes (at least with me).

There are 2 sides to the deficit question, revenues (taxes) AND spending. You left spending out of the equation above.

You see, when the times are good and the revenue really start rolling, Congress shouldn't increase the spending like they do. In *fat times* they need to save (pay down the deficit). In bad times when revenue falls, then run a deficit if neccessary.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
I like how this logic goes. If the economy is doing well, we don't want to mess that up by raising taxes. If the economy is doing poorly we can't make it worse by raising taxes. It never seems to come up in this circular line of thought that it's too late for that. We've already spent the money and now we're taxing our future... with interest.

Nope, that's how not the logic goes (at least with me).

There are 2 side the deficit question, revenues (taxes) AND spending. You left spending out of the equation above.

You see, when the times are good and the revenue really start rolling, Congress shouldn't increase the spending like they do. In *fat times* they need to save (pay down the deficit). In bad times when revenue falls, then run a deficit if neccessary.

Fern

Your post still presupposes the idea that raising taxes is never a good idea. While it might sound good in someone's head, it's obviously false.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fern
You see, when the times are good and the revenue really start rolling, Congress shouldn't increase the spending like they do. In *fat times* they need to save (pay down the deficit). In bad times when revenue falls, then run a deficit if neccessary.

Fern

Then why did bush lower taxes instead of paying down the debt?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... the candidates stance on the deficit.

McCain is talking about a balanced budget, he may be able to do it, but at least he is talking about it.

Obama however does not even TALK about a balanced budget. He has NO plan to balance the budget and NO plan to cut spending. All he has are plans to increase spending.

And before you give me the "Obama is going to eliminate wasteful spending" BS please remember that McCain is saying the same thing, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and everyone else going back to Washington.

why would you want to balance the budget?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
When George Bush took office the operating surplus of the Federal Gov't was $230 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt was $17 billion that year.

This fiscal year the operating deficit of the Federal Gov't will exceed $400 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt may well exceed $700 billion.

So much for Republican VooDoo Economics.

You assume that I'm a Republican and that I like Bush. Both are wrong. Stick to the topic and leave your opinions of me out of it.

Since we have been in a state of perpetual war for the last 5+ years I'm sorry that you cannot see the need to raise expenditures for veterans programs.

You look like a big dumb ass for opposing increases in veterans programs. Your attitude is typical of the compassionate conservatism of the Republican Party - like that of your double-talking hypocrite McCain....

I work for the VA, jackass. I never complained about the VA having funding, only used it as an example of a government agency that is currently operating on a blank check from an unfunded account. So who has failed our veterans?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It became obvious that the deficit was going to rise once the economy started to slow.

Thank god the Democrats are doing everything they can to cut spending...

Simple economics says for you to cut spending when the economy is rising and spend when it is shrinking. You are confused.

 

[winnar111]

Democrats pushing for another stimulus package, GOP resisting

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._on_go_co/stimulus_two

WASHINGTON - With the economy the No. 1 issue just eight weeks from Election Day, majority-party Democrats are trying to push a second stimulus package through Congress to follow the tax rebate checks sent out earlier this year.

So far, Republicans aren't joining the march, echoing the reservations expressed by presidential nominee John McCain and the White House.

Pressure is building for lawmakers to do something ? anything, perhaps.

Democratic leaders plan to forge ahead with a $50 billion stimulus package in the short time Congress will be in session between now and the election.

"It's about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs ? a four-letter word," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, discussing possible contents of a stimulus package.




So which party is spending now, again?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Democrats pushing for another stimulus package, GOP resisting

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._on_go_co/stimulus_two

WASHINGTON - With the economy the No. 1 issue just eight weeks from Election Day, majority-party Democrats are trying to push a second stimulus package through Congress to follow the tax rebate checks sent out earlier this year.

So far, Republicans aren't joining the march, echoing the reservations expressed by presidential nominee John McCain and the White House.

Pressure is building for lawmakers to do something ? anything, perhaps.

Democratic leaders plan to forge ahead with a $50 billion stimulus package in the short time Congress will be in session between now and the election.

"It's about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs ? a four-letter word," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, discussing possible contents of a stimulus package.




So which party is spending now, again?

When George Bush took office the operating surplus of the Federal Gov't was $230 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt was $17 billion that year.

This fiscal year the operating deficit of the Federal Gov't will exceed $400 billion and the increase in the Federal Debt may well exceed $700 billion.

I see your $50 billion stimulus with a $200 billion bailout of Freddie and Fannie, a Federal Reserve that now accepts credit card debt as collateral from financial institutions and the $5 trillion debt of the Bush-Republican Crime Cabal