Liberals explain to me what this 700 billion dollars was for

[JRK]

Total spending 2007
2.7 trillion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total spending 2011
3.4 trilliom
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am confused
What is it that taxing the rich is suppose to do?
Where spending 700 billion dollars more than we were in 2007

We had a 163 billion dollar defict in 07 with a 5% UE
1.5 in 2011 with a "9%" (well kind of)

Now if we are to tax the rich to balance the budget (not even close), well what is this suppose to do?

By growing the size of govt 700 billion dollars, what has it done for us is my question.
looks like to me job creation is the key.
It also looks like to me that taxing the rich will not help us

I think your message and reality are not riding in the same boat

 

[francoHFW]

UE and welfare for victims of the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Also, wars were put on the books....duh

 

[JRK]

UE and welfare for victims of the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Also, wars were put on the books....duh

They have allways been on the books, what do you think they just vanished?


UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Posted in Ongoing Priorities

Print This Post

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

That Myth went away a long time ago
The pubs have not been in power scince 2007
Explain to us how that could be?

Neither party caused the housing bubble, and the Dems are the ones who run up the debt
That link will show clearly whose issue the debt is

 

[starcraftzzz]

Total spending 2007
2.7 trillion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total spending 2011
3.4 trilliom
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am confused
What is it that taxing the rich is suppose to do?

Allow the government to fund key social services, and increase living standards for the non rich

Where spending 700 billion dollars more than we were in 2007

We had a 163 billion dollar defict in 07 with a 5% UE
1.5 in 2011 with a "9%" (well kind of)

Now if we are to tax the rich to balance the budget (not even close), well what is this suppose to do?

By growing the size of govt 700 billion dollars, what has it done for us is my question.
looks like to me job creation is the key.
It also looks like to me that taxing the rich will not help us

I see so you think increasing living standards isn't helpful. Perhaps you english skills do not include knowing the definition of helpful

I think your message and reality are not riding in the same boat

I'm sorry put pointing out Federal spending in 2007 and 2011 and then rambling incoherency isn't showing that other people are wrong

 

[JRK]

Total spending 2007
2.7 trillion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total spending 2011
3.4 trilliom
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am confused
What is it that taxing the rich is suppose to do?

Allow the government to fund key social services, and increase living standards for the non rich

Where spending 700 billion dollars more than we were in 2007

We had a 163 billion dollar defict in 07 with a 5% UE
1.5 in 2011 with a "9%" (well kind of)

Now if we are to tax the rich to balance the budget (not even close), well what is this suppose to do?

By growing the size of govt 700 billion dollars, what has it done for us is my question.
looks like to me job creation is the key.
It also looks like to me that taxing the rich will not help us

I see so you think increasing living standards isn't helpful. Perhaps you english skills do not include knowing the definition of helpful

I think your message and reality are not riding in the same boat

I'm sorry put pointing out Federal spending in 2007 and 2011 and then rambling incoherency isn't showing that other people are wrong

Mr English
You have brought nothing to the discussion but babble
Grown ups can see the simple math as well as the policies that worked for us in 2007 and that are failing us in 2012
Now if you dis agree, you might want to try and to tell us why (if you can)

The point you have totally missed is that we have raised the amount the federal govt spends over 700 billion dollars
The only peoples lives we have improved is BHO and the UAW as far as I can see, well there was those few chosen "companies" he bank rolled that have failed

My ignore list is at about 15, go ahead and step up to the plate.
I have no desire to discuss these issues with idiots who go thru life attacking there fellow Americans and bring nothing to the discussions
That would be your place in life at this time, so go ahead and step up to the plate

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Grown ups can see the simple math as well as the policies that worked for us in 2007 and that are failing us in 2012

Are you serious? I mean, you cannot be this intellectually stunted. The housing bubble / market collapse / recession was quickly winding up in 2007 and became full-blown shit-storm in 2008 - I know, I was fearful of MY job importing parts for American car makers. And you can ABSOLUTELY blame the financial sector for that. What happens when you suddenly throw 700,000 out of work every month? You have to pay unemployment so they don't STARVE - not to mention they can't pay their mortgages anymore. You guys also want to pay slave wages and outsource all the decent jobs? Well, what do you expect the outcome to be? I mean, seriously!

There are ZERO policies in 2007 that would be considered in any way "working" for the economy.

 

[JRK]

Grown ups can see the simple math as well as the policies that worked for us in 2007 and that are failing us in 2012

Are you serious? I mean, you cannot be this intellectually stunted. The housing bubble / market collapse / recession was quickly winding up in 2007 and became full-blown shit-storm in 2008 - I know, I was fearful of MY job importing parts for American car makers. And you can ABSOLUTELY blame the financial sector for that. What happens when you suddenly throw 700,000 out of work every month? You have to pay unemployment so they don't STARVE - not to mention they can't pay their mortgages anymore. You guys also want to pay slave wages and outsource all the decent jobs? Well, what do you expect the outcome to be? I mean, seriously!

There are ZERO policies in 2007 that would be considered in any way "working" for the economy.

Extending UE cost us 34 billion, Let me add it is unclear how much of that is funded thru the UE ins We pay for when we buy goods from corporations
So lets use 50 billion. that leaves 650 billion
House votes to extend jobless benefits, Senate heads for vacation | cleveland.com
And hundreds of thousands more will lose their benefits in the coming weeks. The House voted 270-153 Thursday to extend jobless ... at a cost of $33.9 billion
Please show us what this 650 billion has done for us

The budget of 2007 worked. The housing bubble had nothing to do with the federal govt. If it did it was the repal of Gramm Leach
That was in the late 90s

You are talking Apples and Oranges. The budget we run the govt with has nothing to do with A failedEnergy policy,The threat and promise tax increases, Bailing out GM and Obama-care
The CBO has confirmed that Obama-care will add to the Debt
GM still owes us billions
The failed Energy policy has cost us 1000s of jobs and tax revenue, maybe 100s of thousands

(obama-care fine turns out is a tax)

It amazes me that the 700,000 jobs lost a month re-peat is used when we talk about the budget. We are not talking deficts here, BUDGET

Ok
we add inflation from 2007 (SS payout did not go up for 2 years)
we add 50 billion to help those who have lost there jobs
we are no where near 700 billion

If adding that much would have created jobs, I would not think the way I do, It has done nothing

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The budget of 2007 worked. The housing bubble had nothing to do with the federal govt.

It amazes me that the 700,000 jobs lost a month re-peat is used when we talk about the budget. We are not talking deficts here, BUDGET.

I... just... wow. You said POLICIES of 2007 "worked" and bitched about the rise in spending - which is the fallout from previous and 2007 policies... really? You're going to stand by that?

 

[Moonglow]

Total spending 2007
2.7 trillion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total spending 2011
3.4 trilliom
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am confused
What is it that taxing the rich is suppose to do?

Allow the government to fund key social services, and increase living standards for the non rich

I see so you think increasing living standards isn't helpful. Perhaps you english skills do not include knowing the definition of helpful

I think your message and reality are not riding in the same boat

I'm sorry put pointing out Federal spending in 2007 and 2011 and then rambling incoherency isn't showing that other people are wrong

Mr English
You have brought nothing to the discussion but babble
Grown ups can see the simple math as well as the policies that worked for us in 2007 and that are failing us in 2012
Now if you dis agree, you might want to try and to tell us why (if you can)

The point you have totally missed is that we have raised the amount the federal govt spends over 700 billion dollars
The only peoples lives we have improved is BHO and the UAW as far as I can see, well there was those few chosen "companies" he bank rolled that have failed

My ignore list is at about 15, go ahead and step up to the plate.
I have no desire to discuss these issues with idiots who go thru life attacking there fellow Americans and bring nothing to the discussions
That would be your place in life at this time, so go ahead and step up to the plate

My business is back to good compared to 2008, so I don't see you line of thinking and how it applies to the entire nation.

 

[uscitizen]

Dear JRK,
Please do not attempt to understand economics, recessions, etc because they are beyond your comprehension skillset.

Thank you,
uscitizen

 

[uscitizen]

If the economy was so good in 2007 why did we have a 163 billion defecit in 2007?
And btw that is bogus as the wars were covered in supplemental spending.
the wars are now in the budget.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Total spending 2007
2.7 trillion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total spending 2011
3.4 trilliom
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am confused
What is it that taxing the rich is suppose to do?
Where spending 700 billion dollars more than we were in 2007

We had a 163 billion dollar defict in 07 with a 5% UE
1.5 in 2011 with a "9%" (well kind of)

Now if we are to tax the rich to balance the budget (not even close), well what is this suppose to do?

By growing the size of govt 700 billion dollars, what has it done for us is my question.
looks like to me job creation is the key.
It also looks like to me that taxing the rich will not help us

I think your message and reality are not riding in the same boat

Start by looking at non discretionary items. Look at the demographics of the boomers starting to retire. Look at the increase in poverty and underemployment created by the Bush "ownership society".

 

[Avorysuds]

Ask Mitt, maybe he can tell you being he fully supported it. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCE75NKp4S8]Recovery Act: Mitt Romney flip-flops on the Recovery Act - WhichMitt.com - YouTube[/ame]

Make sure you vote for one of the 2 liberals running, can't wrong being they are almost the same person. Almost because it depends when you look at Mitt's record.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Ask Mitt, maybe he can tell you being he fully supported it. Recovery Act: Mitt Romney flip-flops on the Recovery Act - WhichMitt.com - YouTube

Make sure you vote for one of the 2 liberals running, can't wrong being they are almost the same person. Almost because it depends when you look at Mitt's record.

I plan to vote for the one who didn't make a fortune sending American jobs overseas.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ask Mitt, maybe he can tell you being he fully supported it. Recovery Act: Mitt Romney flip-flops on the Recovery Act - WhichMitt.com - YouTube

Make sure you vote for one of the 2 liberals running, can't wrong being they are almost the same person. Almost because it depends when you look at Mitt's record.

I plan to vote for the one who didn't make a fortune sending American jobs overseas.

"The one who didn't make a fortune sending American jobs overseas" So you're going to do a write in?

 

[Full-Auto]

Ask Mitt, maybe he can tell you being he fully supported it. Recovery Act: Mitt Romney flip-flops on the Recovery Act - WhichMitt.com - YouTube

Make sure you vote for one of the 2 liberals running, can't wrong being they are almost the same person. Almost because it depends when you look at Mitt's record.

I plan to vote for the one who didn't make a fortune sending American jobs overseas.

In other words you will vote for those that committed murder, ran drugs and paid off buddies with tax payer dollars.

Fucking low life.

 

[rdean]

UE and welfare for victims of the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Also, wars were put on the books....duh

They have allways been on the books, what do you think they just vanished?


UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Posted in Ongoing Priorities

Print This Post

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

That Myth went away a long time ago
The pubs have not been in power scince 2007
Explain to us how that could be?

Neither party caused the housing bubble, and the Dems are the ones who run up the debt
That link will show clearly whose issue the debt is

The two wars were not included in any Bush Budget. This has been a central complaint since 2005. Also, the cost of the Bush tax cuts (mostly for the rich) was left out and the drugs for votes bill Republicans passed through reconciliation. This is why the Obama deficit exploded.

You can't point to all the big ticket items passed by Republicans, assign the cost to Obama and the complain Obama is a big spender. What exactly is it he spent the money ON? Obamacare has only barely begun to be factored into the mix and it's tiny. Banks and car companies have paid back their loans and the stimulus is tiny compared to what Republicans have spent.

Worse, more than 40,000 Americans maimed in Iraq. This alone will cost trillions. Another GOP legacy they will assign to Obama. If the GOP had their way, they would "let them die". That's not a joke. We know it to be true.

 

[JRK]

UE and welfare for victims of the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Also, wars were put on the books....duh

They have allways been on the books, what do you think they just vanished?


UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Posted in Ongoing Priorities

Print This Post

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

That Myth went away a long time ago
The pubs have not been in power scince 2007
Explain to us how that could be?

Neither party caused the housing bubble, and the Dems are the ones who run up the debt
That link will show clearly whose issue the debt is

The two wars were not included in any Bush Budget. This has been a central complaint since 2005. Also, the cost of the Bush tax cuts (mostly for the rich) was left out and the drugs for votes bill Republicans passed through reconciliation. This is why the Obama deficit exploded.

You can't point to all the big ticket items passed by Republicans, assign the cost to Obama and the complain Obama is a big spender. What exactly is it he spent the money ON? Obamacare has only barely begun to be factored into the mix and it's tiny. Banks and car companies have paid back their loans and the stimulus is tiny compared to what Republicans have spent.

Worse, more than 40,000 Americans maimed in Iraq. This alone will cost trillions. Another GOP legacy they will assign to Obama. If the GOP had their way, they would "let them die". That's not a joke. We know it to be true.

So your on the record saying that the war cost was not added to the debt until Obama took office?
Wh did he spend our wealth on?
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
thats the 07 numbers that the bottom line DOES include both wars
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
same here for 2011
As a reminder
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

Now as far as those who have lost there lives, Saddam is at fault
He had a chance to do the right thing for years
When Blix announced in Jan of 03 the following, it was over

Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, [email protected]

The truth is here, what good does it do to not vote and debate these issues on the truth?

 

[uscitizen]

The supplemental funding to support the wars during the bush years did show up in the debt but not in the budget or the budgetary defecit numbers that the right touted. The numbers were not known till the next year and then the right was touting the next budget.

Yes it is shown in the end but not talked about at the time by the right.

 

[uscitizen]

They have allways been on the books, what do you think they just vanished?


UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Posted in Ongoing Priorities

Print This Post

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

That Myth went away a long time ago
The pubs have not been in power scince 2007
Explain to us how that could be?

Neither party caused the housing bubble, and the Dems are the ones who run up the debt
That link will show clearly whose issue the debt is

The two wars were not included in any Bush Budget. This has been a central complaint since 2005. Also, the cost of the Bush tax cuts (mostly for the rich) was left out and the drugs for votes bill Republicans passed through reconciliation. This is why the Obama deficit exploded.

You can't point to all the big ticket items passed by Republicans, assign the cost to Obama and the complain Obama is a big spender. What exactly is it he spent the money ON? Obamacare has only barely begun to be factored into the mix and it's tiny. Banks and car companies have paid back their loans and the stimulus is tiny compared to what Republicans have spent.

Worse, more than 40,000 Americans maimed in Iraq. This alone will cost trillions. Another GOP legacy they will assign to Obama. If the GOP had their way, they would "let them die". That's not a joke. We know it to be true.

So your on the record saying that the war cost was not added to the debt until Obama took office?
Wh did he spend our wealth on?
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
thats the 07 numbers that the bottom line DOES include both wars
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
same here for 2011
As a reminder
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

Now as far as those who have lost there lives, Saddam is at fault
He had a chance to do the right thing for years
When Blix announced in Jan of 03 the following, it was over

Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, [email protected]

The truth is here, what good does it do to not vote and debate these issues on the truth?

You might want to reread that wiki article on the defense and supplemental spending the budget that had the military spending oas 548 billion but then I found this below that.

"FY 2007 Supplemental Funding : For FY 2007, $70 billion has already been approved, while the President’s FY 2008 Budget requests an additional $102 billion. If approved by Congress, total FY 2007 spending for DoD/WoT would be $673 billion"

I still think you are being hoodwinked.
102 billion more "if approved" which it was...