Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[taichiliberal]

Help your buddy. Unless you're as dumb as he is? LOL!

As you can see folks, Toddy is your typical intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.....whenever Ed takes him to task and proves him wrong, Toddy plays word games by desperately pretending that and euphenism or substitute description Ed uses is something totally different or irrelevent to the discussion. But the chronolgy of the post exposes Toddy's folly......and since I won't indulge Toddy's stalling and dodges, he reacts like a petulant child. Pity Toddy doesn't realize that his faux hysterics fool no one but himself.
Alan Simpson was dead on target...and as polls shows 50% of Repbulicans NOT agreeing with the stone wall tactics and goals of the GOP regarding the debt ceiling, folk like Toddy will be even more evident of their insipid stubborness.

Run away. LOL!

Thanks for acting just as predicted, Toddy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't change the subject. 500 billion was borrowed to cover the true deficit spending for 2007.

In fiscal 2007, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.

Government outlays were $2,728,686,000 + $340 billion in supplemental spending.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As you can see folks, Toddy is your typical intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.....whenever Ed takes him to task and proves him wrong, Toddy plays word games by desperately pretending that and euphenism or substitute description Ed uses is something totally different or irrelevent to the discussion. But the chronolgy of the post exposes Toddy's folly......and since I won't indulge Toddy's stalling and dodges, he reacts like a petulant child. Pity Toddy doesn't realize that his faux hysterics fool no one but himself.
Alan Simpson was dead on target...and as polls shows 50% of Repbulicans NOT agreeing with the stone wall tactics and goals of the GOP regarding the debt ceiling, folk like Toddy will be even more evident of their insipid stubborness.

Run away. LOL!

Thanks for acting just as predicted, Toddy.

Thanks for running away.

 

[dblack]

The major flaw in your assertion here is that you have to assume that people are not "feeling the pain". The unemployment rate that skyrocketed at the end of the Shrub's 8 years and the "99'ers" are testament to that people are indeed "feeling the pain" and have been for some time.

Unemployed people aren't, in general, paying taxes. So, in the context of the tax burden, no, they're not 'feeling the pain'.

The secondary flaw in your analysis is stating that actually letting the Bush tax cuts sunset as they were originally intended is "scapegoating" the tax code....when in actuality it's stopping the abuse of the tax code. Also, being that you have some major oil companies enjoy obscene profit WHILE PAYING NO TAXES is another form of abuse that should be stopped.

You're stuffing quite a few words in my mouth there. I don't think ending the Bush tax cuts is 'scapegoating' - I'm in favor of it - and I'm in favor of eliminating the loopholes and tax policies that allow major corporations (or anyone, for that matter) from skipping taxes. You seem to be more interesting in building a strawman than in reading my posts.

 

[edthecynic]

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt.
In fiscal 2007, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.

Government outlays were $2,728,686,000 + $340 billion in supplemental spending.

Prove it.

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

 

[taichiliberal]

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Originally Posted by BenNatuf What kind of ******* moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations.

Ben said, "The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B"

Do you agree?

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chronology of the post shows Edthecynic logically and factually disproving your myopic and error ridden economic belief system, Toddy. I just cut to the chase with simple logic. In order for someone to buy your neocon/teabagger bullshit, one has to essentially redefine what a deficit is and how it's paid down...and then ignore specific information in order for your "conclusion" to come about.

As the chronology of the posts shows, whenever Ed puts you in a cornerusing your own convoluted "logic" where you have to admit you're wrong, you just skip back to the beginning and repeat yourself. I discovered LONG ago that trying to get an insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant neocon parrot they are wrong is like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop. So you run along and repeat your myopic BS ad nauseum, Toddy. No matter how hard you try, you just can't revise history to your liking.

In fiscal 2006, government revenues were $2,567,985,000,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000,000.
1)Pretend the "Trust Funds" increased by $340 billion that year.
2)Pretend the "Trust Funds" remained constant that year.
3)Pretend the "Trust Funds" decreased by $340 billion that year.

Under which scenario is the government in the best financial shape? Why?
Try to think, for a change.
Help out your buddy.

Please show ONE official government report that states in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what you do from numbers 1 through 3. If you can't, then you need to get a buddy to help you deal with reality instead of your personal version of it.

In all 3 scenarios, the government collects $2,567,985,000,000.
In #1, Soc Sec (and other "Trust Funds") has a $340 billion excess for the year
In #2, no change in the "Trust Funds".
In #3, the "Trust Funds" decrease by $340 billion.
Now think for a change.

 

[edthecynic]

The major flaw in your assertion here is that you have to assume that people are not "feeling the pain". The unemployment rate that skyrocketed at the end of the Shrub's 8 years and the "99'ers" are testament to that people are indeed "feeling the pain" and have been for some time.

Unemployed people aren't, in general, paying taxes. So, in the context of the tax burden, no, they're not 'feeling the pain'.

The secondary flaw in your analysis is stating that actually letting the Bush tax cuts sunset as they were originally intended is "scapegoating" the tax code....when in actuality it's stopping the abuse of the tax code. Also, being that you have some major oil companies enjoy obscene profit WHILE PAYING NO TAXES is another form of abuse that should be stopped.

You're stuffing quite a few words in my mouth there. I don't think ending the Bush tax cuts is 'scapegoating' - I'm in favor of it - and I'm in favor of eliminating the loopholes and tax policies that allow major corporations (or anyone, for that matter) from skipping taxes. You seem to be more interesting in building a strawman than in reading my posts.

Actually, unemployment benefits are taxed.

 

[taichiliberal]

Run away. LOL!

Thanks for acting just as predicted, Toddy.

Thanks for running away.

The chronology of the posts shows you lying once again, Toddy. I detest liars, especially the intellectually bankrupt neocon ones who think having the last word by repeating their lies or previously disproven assertions and beliefs "wins" the debate.

You're done, Toddy. Carry on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Ben said, "The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B"

Do you agree?

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for acting just as predicted, Toddy.

Thanks for running away.

The chronology of the posts shows you lying once again, Toddy. I detest liars, especially the intellectually bankrupt neocon ones who think having the last word by repeating their lies or previously disproven assertions and beliefs "wins" the debate.

You're done, Toddy. Carry on.

I detest morons who can't add or subtract.
Now run away again. LOL!

 

[dblack]

Actually, unemployment benefits are taxed.

Now you're just being silly. If your income for the year consists of entirely of unemployment compensation, you're paying little or no income taxes. Are you just arguing to fling shit against the wall? You don't even really seem to be comprehending the points I've been making.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government outlays were $2,728,686,000 + $340 billion in supplemental spending.

Prove it.

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

 

[taichiliberal]

The major flaw in your assertion here is that you have to assume that people are not "feeling the pain". The unemployment rate that skyrocketed at the end of the Shrub's 8 years and the "99'ers" are testament to that people are indeed "feeling the pain" and have been for some time.

Unemployed people aren't, in general, paying taxes. So, in the context of the tax burden, no, they're not 'feeling the pain'.

Newsflash: you pay taxes on unemployment insurance. And if you run out and have no source of income, you can't pay your bills or buy food, etc. What you stated here reeks of callous disregard born of ignorance and bias. Marie Antoinette made a statement in a similar context....look what happened to her.

The secondary flaw in your analysis is stating that actually letting the Bush tax cuts sunset as they were originally intended is "scapegoating" the tax code....when in actuality it's stopping the abuse of the tax code. Also, being that you have some major oil companies enjoy obscene profit WHILE PAYING NO TAXES is another form of abuse that should be stopped.

You're stuffing quite a few words in my mouth there. I don't think ending the Bush tax cuts is 'scapegoating' - I'm in favor of it - and I'm in favor of eliminating the loopholes and tax policies that allow major corporations (or anyone, for that matter) from skipping taxes. You seem to be more interesting in building a strawman than in reading my posts.

No, I'm reacting to what you write...you have a habit of making these somewhat generalized statements and assertions that leave one to draw conclusions when placing them against the context of the discussion and the information available to the general public. What you say here now somewhat contradicts your previous posts. You need to clarify your position before you post, as it will leave the reader with a better understanding of what you're actually trying to say.

 

[taichiliberal]

In fiscal 2006, government revenues were $2,567,985,000,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000,000.
1)Pretend the "Trust Funds" increased by $340 billion that year.
2)Pretend the "Trust Funds" remained constant that year.
3)Pretend the "Trust Funds" decreased by $340 billion that year.

Under which scenario is the government in the best financial shape? Why?
Try to think, for a change.
Help out your buddy.

Please show ONE official government report that states in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what you do from numbers 1 through 3. If you can't, then you need to get a buddy to help you deal with reality instead of your personal version of it.

In all 3 scenarios, the government collects $2,567,985,000,000.
In #1, Soc Sec (and other "Trust Funds") has a $340 billion excess for the year
In #2, no change in the "Trust Funds".
In #3, the "Trust Funds" decrease by $340 billion.
Now think for a change.

I didn't ask for an elaboration of your original supposition and conjecture, Toddy....I asked for an EXACT quote from a gov't source that "pretends" what you proport here.

You couldn't do it, that makes you a liar, Toddy.

And since Ed has several times put your oft repeating question to rest
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3873386-post848.html

You're just in denial, Toddy....and will just run in a circle with your hands over your ears and your eyes closed repeating the same mantra ad nauseum. Good luck with that.

 

[edthecynic]

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt.Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

Check it out.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-55.html#post3873214

Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the total deficit.
I'm pretty sure it was you, or your moron friends, who said it wasn't included anywhere.
LOL!

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Originally Posted by BenNatuf What kind of ******* moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations.

Ben said, "The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B"

Do you agree?

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

Who's calling whom a moron!!! That blue box next to Ben's name, with a right pointing arrowhead, is a direct LINK to the post!!! just click on it and it takes you to the post.

 

[taichiliberal]

Ben said, "The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B"

Do you agree?

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

The chronology of the post will always be your undoing Toddy. YOU stated that "Ben Said"... But when one goes to the link and sees what Ben ACTUALLY SAID, it's not what YOU assert Toddy. A matter of fact, of print, of history.

That makes you a liar, and a poor one at that because you're caught but stubbornly deny your guilt to the point of insipidness. You're done....go right ahead and do the predictable intellectually bankrupt neocon dance like I said you would before. Adios!

 

[dblack]

Newsflash: you pay taxes on unemployment insurance.

Come back down to reality. Nominally unemployment benefits are taxable income - but if that's your only income for the year, your tax liability is little to none. Again, what does this have to do with anything I've said?

No, I'm reacting to what you write...you have a habit of making these somewhat generalized statements and assertions that leave one to draw conclusions when placing them against the context of the discussion and the information available to the general public. What you say here now somewhat contradicts your previous posts. You need to clarify your position before you post, as it will leave the reader with a better understanding of what you're actually trying to say.

All I've said here is that taxes should be raised - because we should actually be paying for the government we're getting. It's my conjecture that this would actually prompt voters to demand less government. And I find it ironic that conservatves - who claim to be about responsibility and paying our way, and claim to be about smaller government, are opposed to tax increases when our government is operating at a massive deficit.

I have to ask you at this point to reconsider your preconceived notions and take what I'm saying at face value. Not everyone here is 'left' or 'right'.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, unemployment benefits are taxed.

Now you're just being silly. If your income for the year consists of entirely of unemployment compensation, you're paying little or no income taxes. Are you just arguing to fling shit against the wall? You don't even really seem to be comprehending the points I've been making.

I have a friend who is a boilermaker, and he is laid off and collecting $600 per week. I know because he has me help him file on line because he is not very computer literate, and he is paying taxes on his unemployment.

 

[taichiliberal]

Actually, unemployment benefits are taxed.

Now you're just being silly. If your income for the year consists of entirely of unemployment compensation, you're paying little or no income taxes. Are you just arguing to fling shit against the wall? You don't even really seem to be comprehending the points I've been making.

Your "points" are essentially trying defend your callous and error ridden declarations. Bottom line: YOU stated that people on unemployment don't feel the pain because they are paying taxes.

You were WRONG. Period.

But instead of just owning up to that, you NOW state that because the amount of tax amounts to little, your original statement is somehow justified.

Newsflash for ya, chum. When you're unemployed, you're counting EVERY penny....and when Uncle Sam says that you have to pay back some money on the taxed unemployment insurance, that's going to HURT. And if your entire income is unemployment insurance, and that amounts to UNDER THE POVERTY LINE, well, you're already hurting.

No matter how you slice it, you were WRONG. Deal with it.