Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

[Vast LWC]

The evidence is against you.

There was much to criticize President Bush for, but his tax policy was not one of them. Except for financing of Afghanistan and Iraq, we were making our budget and even with the war expense, the deficit was coming down and the budget would have balanced had it not been for the 2008 crash which had nothing to do with taxes and spending.

So what is Obama's excuse? To continue to spend and spend and spend and spend despite deficits rising to the point that we might never fully recover? And now pending legislation that would allow them to continue that while putting no cap on the amount the taxpayer could be soaked, a certain prescription to extend this recession into perpetuity?

I can't imagine how much kool-ade somebody would have to drink to not see both the danger and irresponsibility in that.

First of all, as has been pointed out every single time that same graph has been linked on this board:

The first of the red lines on that is in fact a Bush administration budget deficit, as the budgets are listed as the following year.

For instance, the 2009 line of 1.85 trillion was the Bush budget that was created in 2008.

The reason why the deficit changed so dramatically was due to instant loss of tax revenue when the fake wealth, consisting of trillions and trillions of dollars worth of derivatives, disappeared overnight.

Bush's tax revenue had already decreased below optimal levels, and that was at the GDP level he thought the country was at before the bottom fell out, causing half-billion dollar deficits, as shown on your chart.

When the GDP dramatically decreased the following year, due to the loss of the aforementioned assets, the deficit tripled instantly.

Thus on January 7th of 2009, when the 2010 budget was estimated, the deficit was still at a level of 1.2 Trillion, according to your own source, the CBO.

 

[Vast LWC]

That doesn't even come close to explaining how increasing the limit on our debt reduces spending. Actually it's quite contrary to the reduction in spending, in fact it allows for even more spending.

What would you propose then Lonestar?

Shall we grind the federal government to a screeching halt until congress decides on where it's going to make cuts and raise taxes?

After all, I'm sure that having government workers, and soldiers not get paid for a while until they work out the details is going to help our economic situation, and thus tax revenue...

Isn't it?

Raising the debt ceiling is included in the bill so government can continue to RUN until things are worked out. Because if government stops in a time of crisis like this, then the country will go into a complete meltdown.

"Pay Go" will go into effect after this one time increase.

Get it?

 

[SFC Ollie]

How does raising taxes and crippling the economy stop deficit spending?

You want to stop deficit spending. Then cut spending.

And yes, there are some Republicans lie about wanting to stop deficit spending. But Id rather vote for someone who promises to lower the deficit then someone who promises to increase it.

What do you think pay as you go is about? It's about cutting spending. The law makes it so congress cannot vote for spending any money unless they can also find a way to pay for it.

No more deficit spending.

There's nothing in the bill about raising taxes.

Why do Republicans feel the need to lie about why their politicians vote no for pay as you go? LOL!!! You throw in raising taxes as if it has anything to do with this.

Face it. Republican Americans either yawn and don't care, or sling lies about the bill to defend their politicians voting no on ending deficit spending.

No more deficit spending? Are you sure you want to hold onto that story? Because it is a story. The first thing your ACT does is raise the debt ceiling.

AMENDMENT:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
1 That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States
2 Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation con3
tained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof
4 $14,294,000,000,000

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hjres45_snamnd.pdf

Now who voted to end deficit spending again?

 

[SFC Ollie]

pay as you go is all about raising taxes to match spending. Spending itself isnt cut. How about we just restore the Republic and cut the programs the Constitution never authorized to begin with?

No, pay as you go is about ending deficit spending.

Congress cannot spend money without paying for it, like the way it was done during the Clinton admin. Bush ended that policy and spent wildly on 2 wars, medicare drug entitlement and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we have an 11 trillion dollar debt. It was 5 trillion when Bush took office.

The tax cuts for the rich will expire this year and go back to what it was under Clinton. That will help cut the deficit.

The Iraq war will end. That will help cut the deficit.

Don't vote Republican unless you want to end pay as you go.

If you like deficit spending, vote Republican.

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

 

[Foxfyre]

The evidence is against you.

There was much to criticize President Bush for, but his tax policy was not one of them. Except for financing of Afghanistan and Iraq, we were making our budget and even with the war expense, the deficit was coming down and the budget would have balanced had it not been for the 2008 crash which had nothing to do with taxes and spending.

So what is Obama's excuse? To continue to spend and spend and spend and spend despite deficits rising to the point that we might never fully recover? And now pending legislation that would allow them to continue that while putting no cap on the amount the taxpayer could be soaked, a certain prescription to extend this recession into perpetuity?

I can't imagine how much kool-ade somebody would have to drink to not see both the danger and irresponsibility in that.

First of all, as has been pointed out every single time that same graph has been linked on this board:

The first of the red lines on that is in fact a Bush administration budget deficit, as the budgets are listed as the following year.

For instance, the 2009 line of 1.85 trillion was the Bush budget that was created in 2008.

The reason why the deficit changed so dramatically was due to instant loss of tax revenue when the fake wealth, consisting of trillions and trillions of dollars worth of derivatives, disappeared overnight.

Bush's tax revenue had already decreased below optimal levels, and that was at the GDP level he thought the country was at before the bottom fell out, causing half-billion dollar deficits, as shown on your chart.

When the GDP dramatically decreased the following year, due to the loss of the aforementioned assets, the deficit tripled instantly.

Thus on January 7th of 2009, when the 2010 budget was estimated, the deficit was still at a level of 1.2 Trillion, according to your own source, the CBO.

All as a result of a crash created by government policy and neglect spanning decades, but that had nothing to do with the Bush budget or tax policy. The Bush administration is culpable in condoning or continuing some policies that contributed to that 2008 crash, but to his credit, by early 2007 President Bush did repeatedly attempt to sound the alarm. It fell on deaf ears in the Democrat controlled Congress. Had they heeded the warning, they could have taken remedial action early on and greatly reduced if not prevented the damage.

But moving along from there, if you already have more than a trillion dollar deficit and a severe recession, the responsible thing to do is to find ways to curb spending that you know will exacerbate it, not propose hundreds of billions or trillions of additional spending and a budget that will ensure unacceptable deficits as far as the eye can see - certainly for long after the time President Obama will have power to do anything about it.

It's positively nuts.

 

[uscitizen]

pay as you go is all about raising taxes to match spending. Spending itself isnt cut. How about we just restore the Republic and cut the programs the Constitution never authorized to begin with?

No, pay as you go is about ending deficit spending.

Congress cannot spend money without paying for it, like the way it was done during the Clinton admin. Bush ended that policy and spent wildly on 2 wars, medicare drug entitlement and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we have an 11 trillion dollar debt. It was 5 trillion when Bush took office.

The tax cuts for the rich will expire this year and go back to what it was under Clinton. That will help cut the deficit.

The Iraq war will end. That will help cut the deficit.

Don't vote Republican unless you want to end pay as you go.

If you like deficit spending, vote Republican.

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That doesn't even come close to explaining how increasing the limit on our debt reduces spending. Actually it's quite contrary to the reduction in spending, in fact it allows for even more spending.

What would you propose then Lonestar?

Shall we grind the federal government to a screeching halt until congress decides on where it's going to make cuts and raise taxes?

After all, I'm sure that having government workers, and soldiers not get paid for a while until they work out the details is going to help our economic situation, and thus tax revenue...

Isn't it?

Raising the debt ceiling is included in the bill so government can continue to RUN until things are worked out. Because if government stops in a time of crisis like this, then the country will go into a complete meltdown.

"Pay Go" will go into effect after this one time increase.

Get it?

First of all I don't believe that by not increasing the limits on public debt would cause the country to come to a screeching halt, That's your claim so you'll have to provide evidence of that. Which of course you won't!

Secondly, I would listen to the Republican proposal specifically the “Roadmap for America’s Future Act”, which includes reforms to the Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The CBO found that federal health spending would be significantly reduced under the Act’s proposals, as would national health expenditures. In addition, there would likely be some unquantified decrease in the number of people with health care coverage. The overall proposal , if implemented would result in far lower federal spending and deficits, and 70% higher per person GDP, than the current fiscal projection from CBO. In fact, the current projection is so bad that the country essentially implodes around 2050. Given that situation, something like the America's Futuure Actalmost has to be considered.

 

[uscitizen]

Federal expendatures would drop under the republican proposal, but private/consumer spending would rise.

 

[SFC Ollie]

No, pay as you go is about ending deficit spending.

Congress cannot spend money without paying for it, like the way it was done during the Clinton admin. Bush ended that policy and spent wildly on 2 wars, medicare drug entitlement and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we have an 11 trillion dollar debt. It was 5 trillion when Bush took office.

The tax cuts for the rich will expire this year and go back to what it was under Clinton. That will help cut the deficit.

The Iraq war will end. That will help cut the deficit.

Don't vote Republican unless you want to end pay as you go.

If you like deficit spending, vote Republican.

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

 

[uscitizen]

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

Yeah right mnost of that first year spending was on Bush's nickel.
He did TARP, His budget, etc.
Stick with the facts, not the spin.

 

[Foxfyre]

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

I gave you thanks for this because you're right. But I bet you agree with the rest of us reformers that the 5 trillion in 8 years was totally unacceptable too?

I think we both agree that because President Bush, a too RINO bunch of Republicans followed by a bigger bunch of liberal Democrats in control did poorly in fiscal responsibility. But that is certainly no justification for President Obama and the current majority of liberal Democrats to escalate the irresponsibility.

 

[uscitizen]

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

I gave you thanks for this because you're right. But I bet you agree with the rest of us reformers that the 5 trillion in 8 years was totally unacceptable too?

I think we both agree that because President Bush, a too RINO bunch of Republicans followed by a bigger bunch of liberal Democrats in control did poorly in fiscal responsibility. But that is certainly no justification for President Obama and the current majority of liberal Democrats to escalate the irresponsibility.

Yep I was for a required balanced budget 30 years ago.

Both Dems and Repubs have become spend frewaks pointing the finger at the other side while bankrupting us.

As I said to someone else most of this spending in Obama's first year was already set into motion by Bush.

With all that said, I do not think it is wise to cut spending to drastically until we recover a bit.
Many many folks work for the govt either directly or indirectly. Cutting spending would result in more jobs lost.

We have worked ourselves into a dangerous corner and must be wise to extricate ourselves without collapsing the house of cards.

I see the Paygo thing as the first step in getting control of our spending, but just the first step.

 

[Vast LWC]

First of all I don't believe that by not increasing the limits on public debt would cause the country to come to a screeching halt, That's your claim so you'll have to provide evidence of that. Which of course you won't!

The 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit makes up 1/3 of the budget. The military, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt make up 2/3 of the budget.

So, in order to eliminate the ability to run at a deficit, which you do when you don't raise the debt ceiling, you would have to eliminate 1/3 of the budget.

Where do you propose taking th money from? If you don't instantly stop payment to one of the above programs, then you have to shut down the government, as that's what the majority of the remaining 1/3 of the spending goes to.

In addition, there are a greater number of old people with every year, so Social Security and Medicare continues to go up, meaning you'd have to cut even more of the budget.

Republicans know fully well that the debt ceiling needs to be raised to keep the government running, but they're making a grandstand effort to make the Democrats look bad, as usual.

Secondly, I would listen to the Republican proposal specifically the “Roadmap for America’s Future Act”, which includes reforms to the Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The CBO found that federal health spending would be significantly reduced under the Act’s proposals, as would national health expenditures. In addition, there would likely be some unquantified decrease in the number of people with health care coverage. The overall proposal , if implemented would result in far lower federal spending and deficits, and 70% higher per person GDP, than the current fiscal projection from CBO. In fact, the current projection is so bad that the country essentially implodes around 2050. Given that situation, something like the America's Futuure Actalmost has to be considered.

Excellent, so Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare?

Great, why didn't you just say so? I'm sure that the older white voters that make up a large portion of the "Tea Party" people will HATE that idea, but I agree it needs to be done.

As long as you add in major cuts to the Military, I'm right there with you.

Though, you can't just cut Social Security funding altogether and continue to pay benefits, like the Republicans wanted to, because if you do, you add an additional 10 Trillion dollars to the debt. You would have to do something like raise the retirement age, or cut benefit levels.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, pay as you go is about ending deficit spending.

Congress cannot spend money without paying for it, like the way it was done during the Clinton admin. Bush ended that policy and spent wildly on 2 wars, medicare drug entitlement and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we have an 11 trillion dollar debt. It was 5 trillion when Bush took office.

The tax cuts for the rich will expire this year and go back to what it was under Clinton. That will help cut the deficit.

The Iraq war will end. That will help cut the deficit.

Don't vote Republican unless you want to end pay as you go.

If you like deficit spending, vote Republican.

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

You can see from the graph on the previous page that the deficit was steadily coming down during the Bush years with no projections of increased taxes on the American people. Should he have used his veto pen more? Yes, but he didn't have the people clamoring for that and vetoing budgets usually only increases the time and expense to get one passed. The President submits a proposed budget that covers the administrative costs of government for which the President is responsible. Congress more often than not declares that budget dead on arrival and then writes the budget as a guide for future expenditures. It is usually bigger than what the President presented.

The real government expense then comes in Congressional appropriations bills which usually only roughly follow budget outlines. The President vetoes those only at the expense of shutting down whole components of government, and the way the Congress prevents that is to include appropriates for parts of government that the President doesn't dare shut down.

Such is the way our government works.

The only way to fix it is to prevent Congress from giving away money to anybody.

 

[SFC Ollie]

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

Yeah right mnost of that first year spending was on Bush's nickel.
He did TARP, His budget, etc.
Stick with the facts, not the spin.

Tarp was in 08. 09 spending broke the record. And 2010 promises to do so again. there is no spin to this check the debt clock. Sorry but spending continues out of control after a year of Democrat complete rule. And they have no plans of stopping it any time soon.

 

[Skull Pilot]

New Thread proposal

Democrat Politicians are telling the truth when they say they want to increase deficit spending into the trillions.

 

[uscitizen]

ANd after one year Obama has us at 12.3 trillion....He's going for a record. And still wants to spend more.

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

You can see from the graph on the previous page that the deficit was steadily coming down during the Bush years with no projections of increased taxes on the American people. Should he have used his veto pen more? Yes, but he didn't have the people clamoring for that and vetoing budgets usually only increases the time and expense to get one passed. The President submits a proposed budget that covers the administrative costs of government for which the President is responsible. Congress more often than not declares that budget dead on arrival and then writes the budget as a guide for future expenditures. It is usually bigger than what the President presented.

The real government expense then comes in Congressional appropriations bills which usually only roughly follow budget outlines. The President vetoes those only at the expense of shutting down whole components of government, and the way the Congress prevents that is to include appropriates for parts of government that the President doesn't dare shut down.

Such is the way our government works.

The only way to fix it is to prevent Congress from giving away money to anybody.

Agreed the same crowd raising hell about the debt did not clamor nearly enough during the bush presidency.

that is my point or one anyway. How much of the deficit clamoring is just partisan and when a republican gets in and will end right off?

 

[SFC Ollie]

but when Bush spent 5 trillion and change it was congresses fault?
Right....

the fool could not find his veto pen any better than he could find WMD's.

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

I gave you thanks for this because you're right. But I bet you agree with the rest of us reformers that the 5 trillion in 8 years was totally unacceptable too?

I think we both agree that because President Bush, a too RINO bunch of Republicans followed by a bigger bunch of liberal Democrats in control did poorly in fiscal responsibility. But that is certainly no justification for President Obama and the current majority of liberal Democrats to escalate the irresponsibility.

I don't even care what Bush spent any more. Yes he spent too much, we see this now. But this level of spending has to stop, and it has to stop soon. How and by who I don't know, but it has to stop. I don't see it happening with Obama at the reigns.

 

[uscitizen]

5 trillion in 8 years vs over one trillion in one year, and record deficit scheduled for next year......Come on now even you can figure out how far in the toilet we're heading.

Yeah right mnost of that first year spending was on Bush's nickel.
He did TARP, His budget, etc.
Stick with the facts, not the spin.

Tarp was in 08. 09 spending broke the record. And 2010 promises to do so again. there is no spin to this check the debt clock. Sorry but spending continues out of control after a year of Democrat complete rule. And they have no plans of stopping it any time soon.

Umm you do know that the current president makes up the budget for the next year don't you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah right mnost of that first year spending was on Bush's nickel.
He did TARP, His budget, etc.
Stick with the facts, not the spin.

Tarp was in 08. 09 spending broke the record. And 2010 promises to do so again. there is no spin to this check the debt clock. Sorry but spending continues out of control after a year of Democrat complete rule. And they have no plans of stopping it any time soon.

Umm you do know that the current president makes up the budget for the next year don't you?

Um, you do know that the budget is purely a general guideline and that the current administration writes and passes the appropriation bills don't you? And also any extra spending bills like TARP and the stimulus package etc. etc. etc. that weren't factored into the budget?