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

[Vast LWC]

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.

As has already been pointed out, multiple times, the graph on the previous page is a bunch of BS because the 2009 deficit was Bush's Budget.

Of course you're just going to continue to ignore that fact, aren't you?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

You have to highlight where it states the republicans want to cut social security and medicare because the fact is, those words don't appear in any of the language that I've read or posted. Unless you equate "reform" with "cuts" which isn't necessarily the case.

I don't know where you get your figures but you're wrong.

As you can see the deficit doesn't make up a third of the budget.

Here it's broke down so that even idiots like you can understand it. Now if you would be so kind as to point out the 1/3 that makes up the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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?

And you know that this congress and Mr Obama added nearly a trillion to it in just one bill. Or do we not count the Spendulus.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

You mean like the war spending that Bush never included in the budget?
but Obama did?

 

[Foxfyre]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Lonestar_Logic again.

Damn it.

 

[Vast LWC]

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?

No, it's not "just a guideline", it's the plan that the government makes to pay people and contracts for the year.

You can't just take the money back after you've already made the contracts.

I guess you could just fire a million or so of the government employees hired during the Bush administration, which would increase the already unbelievable unemployment rate dramatically.

We could start with all those contractors in Iraq. I'd love the government to fire Halliburton personally.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

You mean like the war spending that Bush never included in the budget?
but Obama did?

Perhaps you can prove that?

I do know that the deficit was steadily coming down under President Bush, and even with the too expensive government under his tenure, some of which he condoned, if the 2008 crash hadn't happened, President Obama would have started out with a balanced budget or one very close to it.

You can do your damndest to pin that 2008 crash all on President Bush too, and you won't be able to make that stick either.

Meanwhile, President Obama continually blames President Bush for all the deficits that he is incurring which is the height of dishonesty.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Lonestar_Logic again.

Damn it.

I know the feeling. I'm pretty much at the limit where I can spread some reputation around also.

 

[Vast LWC]

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?

And you know that this congress and Mr Obama added nearly a trillion to it in just one bill. Or do we not count the Spendulus.

That is unbelievably false.

The deficit was estimated to be 1.2 Trillion on January 7th 2009 by the CBO.

At the end of the year, the deficit was at 1.5 trillion INCLUDING stimulus spending, which made up almost the entirety of the 300 billion dollar difference.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'll try to make this simple. The deficit is not included in the budget!

 

[SFC Ollie]

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?

No, it's not "just a guideline", it's the plan that the government makes to pay people and contracts for the year.

You can't just take the money back after you've already made the contracts.

I guess you could just fire a million or so of the government employees hired during the Bush administration, which would increase the already unbelievable unemployment rate dramatically.

We could start with all those contractors in Iraq. I'd love the government to fire Halliburton personally.

Clinton hired Haliburton....

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll try to make this simple. The deficit is not included in the budget!

I don't know Lonestar. That may be too complicated. Waaaaaay to far over their heads to understand.

 

[Vast LWC]

You have to highlight where it states the republicans want to cut social security and medicare because the fact is, those words don't appear in any of the language that I've read or posted. Unless you equate "reform" with "cuts" which isn't necessarily the case.

I don't know where you get your figures but you're wrong.

OK first of all, your first chart is meaningless. "Human Resources" is not a category.

But secondly:

As you can see the deficit doesn't make up a third of the budget.

Here it's broke down so that even idiots like you can understand it. Now if you would be so kind as to point out the 1/3 that makes up the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

Yep, we can break that down, sure!

Social Security: 21.05%
Medicare: 13.34%
Interest on Debt: 8.5%
Defense (including GWOT): 21.7%

Total: 64.59%

Or 2/3 of the national budget.

The total budget for this year is $3.55 trillion.
The total deficit for this year is $1.42 trillion

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or 40% of the budget. (OK so I was off, slightly)

Questions? None? Good, let's continue...

If you want to eliminate the deficit, you have 2 choices, either raise taxes, or cut programs.

Since the entire functioning of the government, aside from the programs I mentioned above, make up 35.41% of the budget, and the deficit is 40% of the budget, your choices are...

 

[Foxfyre]

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

And you know that this congress and Mr Obama added nearly a trillion to it in just one bill. Or do we not count the Spendulus.

That is unbelievably false.

The deficit was estimated to be 1.2 Trillion on January 7th 2009 by the CBO.

At the end of the year, the deficit was at 1.5 trillion INCLUDING stimulus spending, which made up almost the entirety of the 300 billion dollar difference.

Okay, I'm trying for the simple solution here. Please try to focus.

The deficit on January 7 was the deficit accrued by the previous (Bush) administration for 2008. It was the result of an unexpected developing deep recession in 2008 which culminated in a massive financial collapse coupled with a $700 (closer to $800) billion emergency TARP bill supported by almost all the Democrats, including Presidential candidate Obama, and way too many Republicans. Presiden-elect Obama had not yet taken office on January 7. The actual Bush 2008 deficit was just over 400 billion and that included about half of the TARP money.

ALL the deficit accrued since President Obama took office is HIS deficit, and not George W. Bush's. Other than in his role as a U.S. Senator, Obama was not responsible for the difficult financial situation that existed when he took office. He is responsible for every dime of expenditure he has promoted and authorized since he took office, however, and that does not include a deficit that accrued under the Bush administration.

The deficit is the difference between the revenues taken in and the money going out in any given year or period.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'll try to make this simple. The deficit is not included in the budget!

What the hell are you even talking about?

The budget is what we are spending, period.

Tax Revenue is what we take in.

The Deficit is the difference between the Budget and Revenue.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll try to make this simple. The deficit is not included in the budget!

What the hell are you even talking about?

The budget is what we are spending, period.

Tax Revenue is what we take in.

The Deficit is the difference between the Budget and Revenue.

No dear. A budget is not what we are spending. A budget is a general guideline of what we intend to spend.

An appropriations bill is what Congress authorizes to be spent and while that is guided by the budget it is something entirely separate from the budget. Just because something is included in the budget does not always translate to it being included in an appropriations bill. (That often gives Congress a powerful tool to punish in its critics and/or force somebody to get back into line.)

The deficit is the difference between what is taken in and what is SPENT, not between what is taken in and what is budgeted.

 

[Maple]

February 04, 2010 Roll call number 48 in the House Question On Adoption of the second portion of the divided question: H J RES 45 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act

Ayes: 233 (Democrat: 233; Republican: 0)
Nays: 187 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 171)
Abstained: 14 (Democrat: 8; Republican: 6)

House Roll Call #48 Details - OpenCongress

Republican politicians vote against pay as you go. They apparently like deficit spending.

Right wing sheep - stop believing their lies. They aren't trying to balance the budget. They vote against it.

They are hypocrites and liars.

The Republicans were not about to sign onto legislation that would give the Democrats license to hike taxes across the board on everything that is and isn't nailed down in this country. When you have a 'pay as you go' system without spending roll backs and a mega-trillion dollar budget with no savings forecast for years ahead, that would have been a sure prescription to completely crash the economy.

The title of a bill doesn't always tell even part of the true story, much less all of it.

We can still hope and pray that we vote out enough irresponsible Democrats and RINOs and vote in enough fiscal conservatives in the next election to give us a fighting chance to recover from the current economic insanity.

Right on!!!!! and with the SUPER MAJORITY that the house and senate had up until Scott Brown, they did not need ANY republican votes to get ANYTHING through.

That reminds me. What did Obama ACCOMPLISH with his SUPER MAJORITY?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Pay as you go, just means TAX more as you go. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'll try to make this simple. The deficit is not included in the budget!

What the hell are you even talking about?

The budget is what we are spending, period.

Tax Revenue is what we take in.

The Deficit is the difference between the Budget and Revenue.

You're an idiot and I can prove it.

Who said, "The 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit makes up 1/3 of the budget."?

I'll give you a hint the name begins with VAST and ends with LWC.

 

[Vast LWC]

Okay, I'm trying for the simple solution here. Please try to focus.

The deficit on January 7 was the deficit accrued by the previous (Bush) administration for 2008. It was the result of an unexpected developing deep recession in 2008 which culminated in a massive financial collapse coupled with a $700 (closer to $800) billion emergency TARP bill supported by almost all the Democrats, including Presidential candidate Obama, and way too many Republicans. Presiden-elect Obama had not yet taken office on January 7.

False. The CBO estimates only included a little more than 100 billion of the TARP spending, as it was estimated that this was not going to be paid back.

ALL the deficit accrued since President Obama took office is HIS deficit, and not George W. Bush's. Other than in his role as a U.S. Senator, Obama was not responsible for the difficult financial situation that existed when he took office. He is responsible for every dime of expenditure he has promoted and authorized since he took office, however, and that does not include a deficit that accrued under the Bush administration.

The deficit is the difference between the revenues taken in and the money going out in any given year or period.

That is correct. Thus the difference in the deficit from the 1.2 Trillion dollar figure is about 200-300 billion dollars, which is about what was spent on stimulus spending.

In order to bring the deficit down from the 1.2 Trillion dollar figure, Obama would have had to not pay a whole bunch of people, fire a whole bunch of people, or cut needed programs like Social Security.

Thus the DEFICIT between spending and revenues was Bush's.

You can certainly blame Obama for not cutting BUSH's budget, but it wasn't his deficit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I'm trying for the simple solution here. Please try to focus.

The deficit on January 7 was the deficit accrued by the previous (Bush) administration for 2008. It was the result of an unexpected developing deep recession in 2008 which culminated in a massive financial collapse coupled with a $700 (closer to $800) billion emergency TARP bill supported by almost all the Democrats, including Presidential candidate Obama, and way too many Republicans. Presiden-elect Obama had not yet taken office on January 7.

False. The CBO estimates only included a little more than 100 billion of the TARP spending, as it was estimated that this was not going to be paid back.

I think you need to re-study that one. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY was counting on TARP being repaid in 2009. The projected deficit for 2009 was the expected difference between what was expected in revenues versus what was being projected in expenditures. The projected expenditures were developed in the Bush administration yes, but President Bush had no control over what was actually spent in 2009.

ALL the deficit accrued since President Obama took office is HIS deficit, and not George W. Bush's. Other than in his role as a U.S. Senator, Obama was not responsible for the difficult financial situation that existed when he took office. He is responsible for every dime of expenditure he has promoted and authorized since he took office, however, and that does not include a deficit that accrued under the Bush administration.

The deficit is the difference between the revenues taken in and the money going out in any given year or period.

That is correct. Thus the difference in the deficit from the 1.2 Trillion dollar figure is about 200-300 billion dollars, which is about what was spent on stimulus spending.

So, President Obama actually increased the projected deficit for 2009. It was HIS deficit, not President Bush's deficit. He didn't have to spend the remaining TARP monies. He didn't have to initiate an even bigger stimulus package. He didn't have to sign off on a much-larger-than-budgeted appropriations bill laden with earmarks that he had previously pledged not to accept. He could have asked Congress to roll back the previously-approved appropriations that didn't absolutely have to be spent.

President Obama didn't create the recession that he inherited on his inaugeration day. But every dime approved, encouraged, initiated, or allowed on his watch above and beyond revenues taken in is HIS deficit.

In order to bring the deficit down from the 1.2 Trillion dollar figure, Obama would have had to not pay a whole bunch of people, fire a whole bunch of people, or cut needed programs like Social Security.

Thus the DEFICIT between spending and revenues was Bush's.

You can certainly blame Obama for not cutting BUSH's budget, but it wasn't his deficit

See previous comment.

And if you don't accept my comments, then President Bush's first year deficit--you know the one in which Obama repeatedly accuses him of acquiring while wiping out the surplus he inherited--was not Bush's deficit but was Clinton's deficit.