2009 Budget deficit to be largest ever

The disparity between the rich and the rest of us is now at the highest it ever has been. It time to raise taxes on the rich and get our financial house back in order.

I just got this email:

“The White House has issued figures indicating that President Bush and his enablers in Congress will leave his successor with a budget deficit of $482 Billion for Fiscal Year 2009, which is a record. How’s that for a legacy?

“As shocking as this deficit figure is, that’s still not the true scope of our budget woes because it excludes $80 Billion in war costs and $227 Billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

"The real budget deficit is therefore $789 Billion.

“Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund--and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.

“It’s way past time for Washington politicians to have their own Sarbanes-Oxley.

“But this is how corrupt Washington has become. Besides the dangerous practice of massive deficit spending, which will saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, the Bush White House and Congress are conspiring to conceal the true nature and scope of the problem.

“This year’s budget deficit will actually be $307 Billion worse than the politicians are saying. This fraud on the American people is a conspiracy of silence by both major political parties.

“In stunning hypocrisy, the White House blamed the record budget deficit on the slowing economy and the $150 Billion stimulus package passed earlier this year.

“No, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. Stand up and accept the responsibility--and your legacy--for massively expanding government.”
 
I just got this email:

“The White House has issued figures indicating that President Bush and his enablers in Congress will leave his successor with a budget deficit of $482 Billion for Fiscal Year 2009, which is a record. How’s that for a legacy?

“As shocking as this deficit figure is, that’s still not the true scope of our budget woes because it excludes $80 Billion in war costs and $227 Billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

"The real budget deficit is therefore $789 Billion.

“Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund--and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.

“It’s way past time for Washington politicians to have their own Sarbanes-Oxley.

“But this is how corrupt Washington has become. Besides the dangerous practice of massive deficit spending, which will saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, the Bush White House and Congress are conspiring to conceal the true nature and scope of the problem.

“This year’s budget deficit will actually be $307 Billion worse than the politicians are saying. This fraud on the American people is a conspiracy of silence by both major political parties.

“In stunning hypocrisy, the White House blamed the record budget deficit on the slowing economy and the $150 Billion stimulus package passed earlier this year.

“No, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. Stand up and accept the responsibility--and your legacy--for massively expanding government.”

do we have any lawyers here? can we bring up a lawsuit against the politians about this? unlawfully squandering taxpayer money, or something?
 
What a lying load of horse shit.

You know as well as anyone that the GOP would have pounced on the Democrats if they hadn't gone along with bush's Iraq war plans. Give me a break. You really, really, really, really, really, really, need to take the rosey glasses off and het you nose out of bush's ars. Think about it!
 
You know as well as anyone that the GOP would have pounced on the Democrats if they hadn't gone along with bush's Iraq war plans. Give me a break. You really, really, really, really, really, really, need to take the rosey glasses off and het you nose out of bush's ars. Think about it!

We could debate with these guys all day and get no where. They see the facts the way they want to. They think if the dems are in power, they will do what the GOP is doing, but they don't see that the GOP is doing it.

Everytime I somewhat agree with them, it is always followed with, "yea but", because they are missing half the story or half the facts.

Yes we need to be tough on terrorism, but we also need to be diplomatic. Terrorism is the sympton, not the problem. Why are there terrorists? How do we solve that? Is it by murdering them all? Or will trying to do that create more terrorists?

Yes the dems are big spenders, but the GOP turn out to be bigger spenders.

Yes the dems will cut spending on defense, but that's because the GOP overspends on defense. They actually emptied the treasury in the name of defense. Corrupt, bad defense contracts, lost money, giving buddies contracts when they don't make shit that works, etc.

Yes the Dems will negotiate with Iran, but look at how Bush paid off North Korea to stop building nukes.

My favorite is how they defend Bush for not going into Pakistan to get Bin Ladin. What ever happened to the tough talk? If you aren't with us, you are against us. We'll smoke him out wherever he goes. Now Bush says he doesn't spend that much time thinking about Bin Ladin. Yet they dare question why Clinton didn't take him out pre 9-11? We had the entire international communities support before we invaded Iraq. No nation could have harbored such a terrorist had Bush not squandered that support.

Isn't Pakistan dangerously close to being a radical muslim nation? Don't they have WMD's/Nukes? Based on the Iraq invasion argument, we should have taken that country over, not Iraq.

I'm not arguing for going into Pakistan, other than strategically striking the terrorist training camps. If we can't do anything about that, then I guess we lost the war on terrorism.

I'm losing my point. My point is, the people we are arguing with are not deep thinkers. They hear a talking point and can't think beyond it. They think it is black and white and then accuse us of doing that.

They think there is so much more I don't know but then they know everything. And then accuse me of that.

It's called projecting.

Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."
"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others."
"An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."
 
Look how the Conservative that shot up the liberal church blamed the liberal church for being the evil in society. And he himself is evil. Liberals ruin society and in reality, he ruined a community.
 
350px-


Just a little perspective on the debt.
 
Spot on.

In my lifetime the highest rate of taxes has plummetted from 90% to 35%.

That's nearly a 60% decrease in taxation for the superrich.

Now I was around very wealthy people back them and believe me they were were STILL plenty rich even paying that absurd rate (that how rich they really are , fans)

Meanwhile at roughtly the same time, the rate of social security taxation imposed the working classes had risen 1,500% (from 1% to about 15%) as the amount taken out for social secuity and medicade increased to deal with the democgraphics of an aging population.

So while the right complains about how social security and medicade cost the government so much, (even though they're really on different budgets coming from completely different revenue streams) the masters they are so slavishly loyal to, are NOT paying anywhere near the majority of that money.

It an accounting logic shell game, that sadly, far too many working class and professional class people can't find the pea under the shell.

Income and taxation disparity is wrecking this Republic, folks.

Remember now that Bill Gates pays the same amount as somone making maybe only $100,000 or so of THOSE SSI and medicade taxes which are the largest taxes that working people pay.

The rich are not paying for our social security and medicade folks, WE ARE.

What percentage of of SSI and medicade taxes do the superwealthy really pay? I doubt it's 10% of those taxes, folks.

Anyone actually know?

We can all quote how the superrich pay so much of FICA, but that is really the smallest part of taxes being paid by all Americans in total, I suspect.

Throw in sales taxes and local taxes, that the working and poor classes pay, and I'm betting the working classes are paying MOST of the taxes in this nation, while making a smaller amount (in aggregate) than the top 5% are making combined.

The taxation system is rigged for the benefit of the superwealthy.

Not you doctor, not your lawyer, and certainly not the guy selling you coffee in the 7-11, not anyone who WORKS for a living, but for the stupendously rich.

You are aware that social security tax funds are used in the General fund? They are not set aside just for Social Security? The government writes an IOU and spends the money. IN 20 years when the fund needs the money back, where exactly is the Government gonna find the funds they "borrowed" to pay it back? We already have a HUGE deficit , how exactly does the Government pay it back?
 
You are aware that social security tax funds are used in the General fund? They are not set aside just for Social Security? The government writes an IOU and spends the money. IN 20 years when the fund needs the money back, where exactly is the Government gonna find the funds they "borrowed" to pay it back? We already have a HUGE deficit , how exactly does the Government pay it back?

They'll just print more money, devaluing the dollar even more than it is now and then just slap it on the debt. Plus, whatever the dollar amount they give senions now, won't be all that much then. Let's say each senior gets $1000 a month, for example. What will $1000 get you in 20 or 30 years? SQUAT!

So:

1. The Government needs to stop spending so much.
2. They need to take back and even raise the taxes on the top 1%
3. Raise corporate taxes.
4. Tariff the shit out of foreign companies that import here so it is cheaper to produce things at home. Some industies can be exempt from this if deemed necessary. For example, shoes. No one wants to pay $200 for a pair of shoes so we will accept cheap shoes from foreign companies. Or copiers. But not cars.
5. If 5 auto companies can't be profitable and pay American workers a decent wage, maybe there are too many car companies. And if you can't afford a new car because this drives the price of new cars up, then buy used. Not everyone should expect to have a new car, right conservatives? Free markets.
6. Stop giving millionaire farmers tax breaks to not produce crops.
7. Socialize oil. Those record profits could be paying off our debt.
8. Take back the treasury and abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve.
9. Socialize medicine. Tax payers pay too much for the uninsured. I'd rather pay off the debt.
10. No bridges to no where. You should not be able to sneak pork in a bill without letting the public know about it.

I could go on, but this is a good start.
4.
 
I just got this email:
“Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund--and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.
And to be fair ... this accounting trickery is exactly how Clinton was able to claim budget surpluses, when there was in fact no real surplus.

Brian
 
And to be fair ... this accounting trickery is exactly how Clinton was able to claim budget surpluses, when there was in fact no real surplus.

Brian

Still, Bush turned Clinton's "surplus" into a deficit.

Even with Bush's fuzzy math, he could never claim to have a Surplus.

Just compare the two and decide for yourself. Heck, even take out the Iraq and Afgan spending and still Clinton beat Bush like a red headed stepchild.
 
I just got this email:

“The White House has issued figures indicating that President Bush and his enablers in Congress will leave his successor with a budget deficit of $482 Billion for Fiscal Year 2009, which is a record. How’s that for a legacy?

“As shocking as this deficit figure is, that’s still not the true scope of our budget woes because it excludes $80 Billion in war costs and $227 Billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

"The real budget deficit is therefore $789 Billion.

“Under accounting trickery that would probably land the top officers of a publicly traded company in jail, the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund--and spent on anything and everything except Social Security payments--is not counted towards the budget deficit, although it is part of our $9.49 Trillion National Debt.

“It’s way past time for Washington politicians to have their own Sarbanes-Oxley.

“But this is how corrupt Washington has become. Besides the dangerous practice of massive deficit spending, which will saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, the Bush White House and Congress are conspiring to conceal the true nature and scope of the problem.

“This year’s budget deficit will actually be $307 Billion worse than the politicians are saying. This fraud on the American people is a conspiracy of silence by both major political parties.

“In stunning hypocrisy, the White House blamed the record budget deficit on the slowing economy and the $150 Billion stimulus package passed earlier this year.

“No, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. Stand up and accept the responsibility--and your legacy--for massively expanding government.”

You do realize that democrats have stolen from Social Security as well right? That is what Social Security has become a slush fund for general programs. I hope if your 40 or younger your not depending on it because you will be in for a rude awakening. As far as expanding the government, entitlements have been outgrowing the GDP by about 10% for quite some time. The absurdity of this growth is that if Congress doesn't specifically vote on entitlement budgets(politically convenient) then they automatically grow.
 
Still, Bush turned Clinton's "surplus" into a deficit.

Even with Bush's fuzzy math, he could never claim to have a Surplus.

Just compare the two and decide for yourself. Heck, even take out the Iraq and Afgan spending and still Clinton beat Bush like a red headed stepchild.

BS...Clinton's last budget had a deficit exceeding 90 billion dollars.
 
You are of course right, but how much of Bush's budget proposals were really trimmed that much by the Republicans majority in congress?

The issue is that the Repubs moved with Bush in lockstep, and he got most of what he wanted in regards to spending.

Obviously Kirk is trying to place too MUCH blame on just one person, but the main problem is that conservatives voted for a guy they thought was going to be conservative, and he ended up being anything BUT. A true fiscal conservative would never have even PROPOSED the budgets that Bush did, let alone be willing to sign even the ones that congress sent back to him.

I won't argue with you on this, the Republican Congress is largely responsible for the budget deficits in Bush's what first 6 years. But the Democrats were largely responsible for the budget deficits in the Reagan years.
 
BS...Clinton's last budget had a deficit exceeding 90 billion dollars.

i think you missed his point. he acknowledged that clinton didnt really have a surplus with the " ", but he said bush could not claim a surplus regardless of how he spins the numbers
 
An officially debunked liberal lie, Congress controls the purse strings not the President. The President only has the right to veto tax and spend bills which can be overridden by Congress.

Not only did I debunk your lies, I will ask you once again....

How will Obama have budget surpluses when he is calling for a multi-trillion dollar healthcare system?

How many liberals here think Obama will have budget surpluses by the end of his first term?
 
i think you missed his point. he acknowledged that clinton didnt really have a surplus with the " ", but he said bush could not claim a surplus regardless of how he spins the numbers

He said that Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into deficits which is a lie. Clinton's last fiscal budget for 2008 had a shortfall of 95 billion dollars.
 
Not only did I debunk your lies, I will ask you once again....

How will Obama have budget surpluses when he is calling for a multi-trillion dollar healthcare system?

How many liberals here think Obama will have budget surpluses by the end of his first term?

multi trillion? source for that very high estimate? his campaign puts it at $65 billion
 
He said that Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into deficits which is a lie. Clinton's last fiscal budget for 2008 had a shortfall of 95 billion dollars.

you missed the point again. you clearly dont understand ""

clinton used fuzzy math to show a surplus which wasnt really there, but bush is unable to do even that
 
Last edited:
Not only did I debunk your lies, I will ask you once again....

How will Obama have budget surpluses when he is calling for a multi-trillion dollar healthcare system?

How many liberals here think Obama will have budget surpluses by the end of his first term?


let me go on record right now to predict that not only will Obama not have a surplus in his first term, but if he enacts even half of what he wants to, he will have the LARGEST deficits ever, not only in total, but as a % of GDP, which is not the case of the currect deficits. While the current deficits are unacceptably large, they are not the largest ever as a % of GDP. Those were in the 80's under Reagan and a Democratic Congress.
 

Forum List

Back
Top