2009 Budget deficit to be largest ever

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you support a line item veto for the executive?

I did, However I don't anymore. I believe it is a Constitutional no go. However I might support a clause or paragraph line item veto, depending on if it can pass the muster of Separation of Powers.

Not sure it can though. I LIKE the idea but it puts to much power in the hands of the President. Congress is the body that is allowed to write and create new laws and such. With a veto like the above the President could alter the very intent and purpose of Legislation sent to him. That is not his power.

 

[Paulie]

I did, However I don't anymore. I believe it is a Constitutional no go. However I might support a clause or paragraph line item veto, depending on if it can pass the muster of Separation of Powers.

Not sure it can though. I LIKE the idea but it puts to much power in the hands of the President. Congress is the body that is allowed to write and create new laws and such. With a veto like the above the President could alter the very intent and purpose of Legislation sent to him. That is not his power.

I'm not sure about it either way myself, but I think we ought to be honest with ourselves on the issue of pork spending, that no president is going to be able to control it, absent a line item veto.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not sure about it either way myself, but I think we ought to be honest with ourselves on the issue of pork spending, that no president is going to be able to control it, absent a line item veto.

Doesn't matter. The only way such would be Constitutional is by Amendment.

 

[editec]

I do not disagree that the people have failed in their political duty in this country, but I simply can not give them a free pass on finances.

I don't recall getting a vote on any single item of the Federal budget. Did you?

The establishment and the system doesn't force ME into making bad financial decisions, and why should I hold myself in higher esteem than anyone else on that?

Valid point, expect we are not talking about bad financial decisions you might have made. We're discussing bad financial policies that our government made

Why should someone else who made bad financial choices be given the freebie of blaming someone ELSE for their own bad choices?

See above

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the people ONLY are to blame. I'm saying they've contributed to our economic mess just as much as the leaders they've irresponsibly and ignorantly voted in.

Really? How?

BY voting for the Democratss who pissed away money, and sold their citizens into financial insolvency?

Or by voting for Republicanss who pissed away money, and sold the citizens into financial insolvency?

Don't tell me of person of your intelligence can't see the good cop/bad cop game that we STUCK with here.

That's what the game is, Paul.

Divide and conquer.

Rally the minions to pump up the idiots to think that the most important thing in their political universe are social issues.

And then when, as is inevitable, truth manifests (because you can't hide things like inflation and unemployment, bankruptsy stats forever!) when people start waking up? Pump out those partians talking points in the media, such that our partisan nitwits chums scream that its all the fault of their communist liberal neighbors, or their fascist conservatives neighbors...and if ONLY they're vote for the ___________ party things would be just swell.

No, blood.

The people are mislead, propagandandized, outright lied to.

We are set upon our brothers and sisters and THAT is no freaking accident, Paulitic.

(BTW, that is an incredibly clever handle. I've been meaning to mention that)

 

[Paulie]

I don't recall getting a vote on any single item of the Federal budget. Did you?

We all did. The politicians we elect represent us. Not that I think they are doing it properly, but we have a say.

Valid point, expect we are not talking about bad financial decisions you might have made. We're discussing bad financial policies that our government made

You deviated a bit, and included all who were to blame. You included the people, and I expanded on how exactly the people are to blame. It is not JUST the federal budget that is causing our pain right now.

See above



Really? How?

BY voting for the Democratss who pissed away money, and sold their citizens into financial insolvency?

Or by voting for Republicanss who pissed away money, and sold the citizens into financial insolvency?

Don't tell me of person of your intelligence can't see the good cop/bad cop game that we STUCK with here.

That's what the game is, Paul.

Divide and conquer.

Rally the minions to pump up the idiots to think that the most important thing in their political universe are social issues.

And then when, as is inevitable, truth manifests (because you can't hide things like inflation and unemployment, bankruptsy stats forever!) when people start waking up? Pump out those partians talking points in the media, such that our partisan nitwits chums scream that its all the fault of their communist liberal neighbors, or their fascist conservatives neighbors...and if ONLY they're vote for the ___________ party things would be just well.

No, blood.

The people are mislead, propagandandized, outright lied to.

We are set upon our brothers and sisters and THAT is no freaking accident, Paultiec.

(BTW, that is an incredibly clever handle. I've been meaning to mention that)

You ought to know by now that you'll get no argument from me on all of that. But the American people must be willing to take responsibility for the fact that they've obviously gone far too overboard on overextending themselves.

Thanks about the handle. I think some here think Paul is my name, but it's just a play on words, using Ron Paul's name.

 

[sealybobo]

What a lying load of horse shit.

Boston.com / News / Nation / Back-room dealing a Capitol trend

GOP flexing its majority power

The Rules Committee, the all-powerful gatekeeper of the Republican leadership, prevented the measure from reaching the House floor. In a further show of its power to pick and choose what the full House can vote on, the Rules Committee allowed the House to vote on a ban on future Homeland Security contracts to overseas companies -- but let the $10 billion flow to Accenture, which spent $2 million last year lobbying the government.
The Accenture episode is emblematic of the way business is conducted in the 108th Congress, where a Republican leadership has sidelined legislation unwanted by the Bush administration, even when a majority of the House seemed ready to approve it, according to lawmakers, lobbyists, and an analysis of House activities. With one party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, and having little fear of retaliation by the opposing party, the House leadership is changing the way laws are made in America, favoring secrecy and speed over open debate and negotiation. Longstanding rules and practices are ignored. Committees more often meet in secret. Members are less able to make changes to legislation on the House floor. Bills come up for votes so quickly that elected officials frequently don't know what's in them. And there is less time to discuss proposed laws before they come up for a vote.

 

[sealybobo]

Thank God For The Internet. Just Like Mccain Can't Lie Or Deny Anymore, Neither Can You.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not sure about it either way myself, but I think we ought to be honest with ourselves on the issue of pork spending, that no president is going to be able to control it, absent a line item veto.

The President can say he will not sign the bill with certain pork in it. If he doesn't sign, the bill doesn't get passed. Unless they have a veto proof majority of course.

Not all pork is bad. Bridge to knowwhere, bad, pork to fix bridges and levy's, good.

 

[Charles_Main]

We must have a line item Veto!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

Anyways, I believe Obama will have surpluses by the end of his first term.

You are smoking some good crack bud. Between Obamas new spending, and his economy killing Tax Increases, I bet the Deficits GROW under Obama.

 

[DiamondDave]

Just when you think bobo the clown has said the most ridiculous thing possible... out pops another.... this one in the same day as he proclaimed Obama not to be far left...

LOL

My sides are splitting because of this absolutely blinded libtard

 

[Chris]

You are smoking some good crack bud. Between Obamas new spending, and his economy killing Tax Increases, I bet the Deficits GROW under Obama.

I will take that bet. If we bring the troops home from Iraq and raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, our deficits will shrink.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I am simply amazed at how STUPID most Americans are about how our Government works.

And you prove your own point by simply looking at the Constitutional requirements. Ever hear of the political process? Do you have any idea at all how political parties operate? Yes, I understand your very simplistic point about how constitutionally the executive branch doesn't write the bills, but reality is different dude.

The President is the leader of his political party as well as the country. Can you at least acknowledge that?

Do you understand that political parties are not in the Constitution?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I will take that bet. If we bring the troops home from Iraq and raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, our deficits will shrink.

No, they won't. The amount of money taken in by raising marginal tax rates on the top wage owners a few percentage points won't amount to even a fraction of a percent of the deficit. The expenditures in Iraq would only largely move to a significantly increased effort in Afghanistan, which is what Obama claims he wants to do. He will not just bring them home, but redeploy most of them.

The deficits come from two major places, interest in the debt and ENTITLEMENT spending. And the fastest growing entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid overruns dwarf any expenditures on Iraq or any other social spending. Defense spending, even adding in Iraq, is still well below Cold War spending level in terms of percentage of GDP and percentage of the budget.

 

[jreeves]

No doubt America needs a facelift after 8 years of neglect, so spending might be high the first few years, but at least the money will be spent in America.
Anyways, I believe Obama will have surpluses by the end of his first term. I really think Pelosi, Reed and Obama won't go wild like Delay, Bush & Hastert did when they controlled all branches of government.

Oh yeah just like that 700 billion dollars that leave this country every year to pay for oil, to alot of rouge nations that has our demise as their end goal. That 700 billion dollars doesn't even include the lost tax revenue we would gain from domestic oil companies. But maybe your changing your tune, do you now support more domestic drilling and oil shale development?


Sure Obama will have surpluses by the end of his first term, with multi-trillion dollar healthcare entitlement. Sure....

 

[Chris]

Oh yeah just like that 700 billion dollars that leave this country every year to pay for oil, to alot of rouge nations that has our demise as their end goal. But maybe your changing your tune, do you now support more domestic drilling and oil shale development?


Sure Obama will have surpluses by the end of his first term, with multi-trillion dollar healthcare entitlement. Sure....

He probably will. The last democratic president had surpluses.

 

[jreeves]

He probably will. The last democratic president had surpluses.

Clinton didn't have a true budget surplus....

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[jreeves]

Clinton didn't have a true budget surplus....

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Besides you deflect once again, how again is Obama going to balance the budget with a multi-trillion dollar healthcare entitlement in universal healthcare?

 

[Zoomie1980]

He probably will. The last democratic president had surpluses.

The balanced budgets of the Clinton years were achieved with record tax receipts due to the Tech and .com boom. Clinton's last budget was deeply in debt because that boom had busted and tax receipts crashed. By the time Bush took office the economy was already plummeting to a recession that was sped up and intensified by 9-11.

Budget deficits are simply parameters of the economy. When it is flourishing, they go down and even occasionally end up with surpluses.

 

[Chris]

Budget deficits are simply parameters of the economy?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Budget deficits are the result of the tax cut and spend policies of the Republican Party. Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org