Time to start saying "NO"

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Big Black Dog, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,918
    Thanks Received:
    5,110
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,722
    When is enough, enough? The deficit was projected to be 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now they just came out with new numbers and are saying the deficit is projected to be 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Last month alone we paid over a billion dollars on just the interest to China on the money we owe them. We are doing nothing to repay this huge debt except paying the interest on the loan. Congress is trying to pass a health care reform bill that will cost something over a trillion dollars. In the past few months we have spent a trillion dollars on things such as bank bailouts, Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, and the list goes on and on. When is enough, enough? I think it's past time for the government to stop spending money like it's going out of style and begin to repay all of our debt before we add anything else to that debt. If we don't do this there is going to be some very high inflation in this country and the dollar isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on. What say you? Isn't this spending getting way out of hand?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. ba1614
    Offline

    ba1614 Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,812
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Deep in the Northern Woods
    Ratings:
    +876
    Yup, and rather than get spending under control we'll tax the shit out of people, and because that's not enough, we'll just print and/or borrow some more.

    Just because the working class has had to tighten their belts, and make due with less, doesn't mean anyone living off our taxes should as well! Fuck no, just spend more and make the working stiff do with even less.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    If we fix the healthcare system, we will save money. Well not the frigging CEOs, but hell they can retire on what they have.

    If you don't fix it now, you will be paying more in premiums in a short time than the Euro peeings pay now in taxes for their socialized healthcare.
     
  4. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    Or bring back the tax rates for the rich like they were before Ronald "I hate the middle class" Reagan lowered them.

    That would help.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,388
    Thanks Received:
    19,853
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,430
    You forgot the money we spent on 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts
     
  6. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    The money we spent on the 2 wars is less than the proposed cost of health care reform, but at least health care is to help people not blow them up.

    Oh and the Bush tax cut lies need to stop. We have numbers on the books now that contradict the statement that his tax cuts hurt revenue.

    Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

    Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:

    •18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,
    •18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and
    •18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]
    While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a tempo*rary stock market bubble.

    [1] The historical averages range between 17.9 percent and 18.3 percent of GDP, depending on the time horizon.

    [2] Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006), pp. 25–26, Table 1.3, at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf (January 16, 2007), with final 2006 revenue figures added in.

    [3] According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 1980s recession ended in fiscal year (FY) 1983 (November 1982), the 1990s recession ended in FY 1991 (March 1991), and the early 2000s recession ended in FY 2002 (November 2001). National Bureau of Economic Research, "US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions," at Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions (January 16, 2007).


    Try some water instead of Kool aid
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2009
  7. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    Nearly all of the Bush budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

    Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

    The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)



    Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

    The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre–tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]

    The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.


    [4] See Brian M. Riedl, "Federal Spending: By the Numbers," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 989, February 6, 2006, at Federal Spending--By the Numbers.

    [5] See Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001–2010," January 2000, p. xvi, Summary Table 2, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/18xx/doc1820/e&b0100.pdf (January 16, 2007). The January 2000 baseline pro*jected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,465 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. The same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,140 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.

    [6] See Congressional Budget Office, "An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004," March 2003, p. 36, Table 4, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4129/03-31-AnalysisPresidentBudget-Final.pdf (January 16, 2007). The March 2003 baseline projected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,360 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. That same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,417 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.

    [7] While the March 2001 baseline was the last created before the tax cuts, it does not provide a realistic baseline for measuring subsequent policies. This baseline assumed that the stock market bubble would continue, and the CBO consequently projected that revenues would stay above 20.2 percent of GDP indefinitely, even though that level had been reached only once since World War II. The January 2000 baseline more accurately reflected future economic performance.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2009
  8. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,944
    Thanks Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,836
    Plymco, I'm going to repeat the one line that really matters, since those whom you are arguing against will be unlikely to read everything that you posted since it goes against their pre-conceived notions:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    The estimate cost of the health care bill is one trillion over ten years, or 100 billion a year.
    War allocations have been more than every year since FY2005.

    The distance between peaks in real revenue during the Bush years were the longest since the Second World War. That alone tells you the tax cuts had a negative impact on revenues.
     
  10. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    It was 1.7 trillion.

    However, the estimated cost of medicare by 1990 was supposed to be 6 billion, it ended up being over 60 billion.

    Also the govt thought that cash for clunkers would be a billion, ended up being 3 billion.

    If we go with your 1 trillion its still more than what we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan so far

    COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War
     

Share This Page