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

[Vast LWC]

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.

That's parsing words and arguing semantics.

How does this prove that a deficit cannot be 1/3 of what was budgeted? You know, in the budget?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

That's parsing words and arguing semantics.

How does this prove that a deficit cannot be 1/3 of what was budgeted? You know, in the budget?

Every year my spouse and I make up our budget. We decide what we expect to pay for food, housing, utilities, clothing, transportation, recreation etc. etc., what we hope to be able to save, what we'll give to charity, etc.

We try to stick to that budget but never can do so exactly. Sometimes we have to move budgeted monies from transportation or recreation or some other fund to cover an unusually high utility bill or an unexpected plumbing bill or whatever.

At the end of the year, if we have more money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we enjoy a surplus. If we have less money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we have a deficit.

The budget doesn't have a dang thing to do with any of that other than providing a guideline for us to follow. It's writing checks against what we deposit that determines whether we have a surplus or deficit.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

OK, fine, you're right, it was 180 Billion that was expected to not be paid back:

CBO Projects Record $1.2 Trillion Budget Deficit for FY 2009...and That's Before Any Stimulus Action

Another $184 billion represents the estimated cost of the federal government's activities related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)

.

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.

He increased it by 200 Billion dollars, which was the money spent in the stimulus.

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.

Wow, that's real convenient, isn't it?

Because any cuts that Obama made to the proposed Bush budget would have been blamed on Obama as cuts to existing benefits. What a great way for you to try to have your cake and eat it too!

You get none of the blame for the spending, all of the credit for devoting funds to the programs proposed in it, and none of the blame for any cuts that have to be made in your budget. LOL.

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.

See previous comment indeed.

That's all fine and dandy except that the deficit didn't increase under Bush until 2002.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/TheNationalDebt.htm

Specifically:

(in Millions)
1/1/2001.............127,424
1/1/2002.............-157,797
1/1/2003.............-375,295

 

[Vast LWC]

Every year my spouse and I make up our budget. We decide what we expect to pay for food, housing, utilities, clothing, transportation, recreation etc. etc., what we hope to be able to save, what we'll give to charity, etc.

We try to stick to that budget but never can do so exactly. Sometimes we have to move budgeted monies from transportation or recreation or some other fund to cover an unusually high utility bill or an unexpected plumbing bill or whatever.

At the end of the year, if we have more money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we enjoy a surplus. If we have less money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we have a deficit.

The budget doesn't have a dang thing to do with any of that other than providing a guideline for us to follow. It's writing checks against what we deposit that determines whether we have a surplus or deficit.

Look, I know what you're saying. It still doesn't contradict the fact that the amount you are short can equal 1/3 of what you budgeted in the first place, which was my point.

And if part of your budget was mortgage payments, car payments etc, you have to pay them off, or lose your house and your car. You also would have to pay off maintenance costs, etc, that you would have budgeted for originally.

If, halfway through your budget year, your wife loses her job and cuts your income in half, then the deficit is going to be much larger than expected, if you stick to your budget.

The spending is already budgeted. In the government's case, it can borrow the money to make up the difference between what it budgeted and what the actual revenue figures are, or it can fire a bunch of people that are currently working for them, or cut benefits to below what people expected based on the Budget.

In our current case, if you budget a wage increase for Soldiers serving in Iraq, you can't just take it back halfway through the year, if you budget involves an increase in the amount of people receiving social security, you can't just not pay those people, and if your Budget does not account for a massive unexpected shortfall in tax revenue, you can't just suddenly stop covering Medicare.

I mean, you could, but it would be really really bad.

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

How do you go from "Opposed to greater Government Debt" to "Supports deficit Spending"

Are you Stupid or just a Liar?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

Not to mention 7 trillion dolllars in budget deficits projected for the next 7 years added to nearly 8 trillion dollars of new National debt.....Obama better get his ******* act together or he's gone.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

How do you go from "Opposed to greater Government Debt" to "Supports deficit Spending"

Are you Stupid or just a Liar?

LOL...I'm going with stupid.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

How do you go from "Opposed to greater Government Debt" to "Supports deficit Spending"

Are you Stupid] or just a Liar?

LOL...I'm going with stupid.

I'll go with someone who read the rest of the thread, where there's an entire discussion about how the debt ceiling needs to be raised temporarily to keep the government from failing while ways are found to reduce the deficit.

Hell, even if you cut the deficit by 75%, we'd STILL need to raise the debt ceiling. What part of that do you not understand exactly?

Even Republicans know it, they're just spouting BS to grandstand and score points with the more stupid folks among their base. Like you two.

Oh wait, let me say that again in big letters so you'll understand it:

the more stupid folks among their base. Like you two.

There, is that better?

 

[Foxfyre]

Every year my spouse and I make up our budget. We decide what we expect to pay for food, housing, utilities, clothing, transportation, recreation etc. etc., what we hope to be able to save, what we'll give to charity, etc.

We try to stick to that budget but never can do so exactly. Sometimes we have to move budgeted monies from transportation or recreation or some other fund to cover an unusually high utility bill or an unexpected plumbing bill or whatever.

At the end of the year, if we have more money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we enjoy a surplus. If we have less money in investments, savings, and checking account than we started with, we have a deficit.

The budget doesn't have a dang thing to do with any of that other than providing a guideline for us to follow. It's writing checks against what we deposit that determines whether we have a surplus or deficit.

Look, I know what you're saying. It still doesn't contradict the fact that the amount you are short can equal 1/3 of what you budgeted in the first place, which was my point.

And if part of your budget was mortgage payments, car payments etc, you have to pay them off, or lose your house and your car. You also would have to pay off maintenance costs, etc, that you would have budgeted for originally.

If, halfway through your budget year, your wife loses her job and cuts your income in half, then the deficit is going to be much larger than expected, if you stick to your budget.

The spending is already budgeted. In the government's case, it can borrow the money to make up the difference between what it budgeted and what the actual revenue figures are, or it can fire a bunch of people that are currently working for them, or cut benefits to below what people expected based on the Budget.

In our current case, if you budget a wage increase for Soldiers serving in Iraq, you can't just take it back halfway through the year, if you budget involves an increase in the amount of people receiving social security, you can't just not pay those people, and if your Budget does not account for a massive unexpected shortfall in tax revenue, you can't just suddenly stop covering Medicare.

I mean, you could, but it would be really really bad.

You're missing the point. IF we don't have the money to cover whatever is in our budget, we don't spend all our budget. We cover what we absolutely have to cover, and if there is insufficient funds to cover our legal/ethical obligations, then we may have to borrow.

The budget is NOT A MANDATE either for my household nor the Federal Government. It is a spending PLAN contingent on income and outgo accumulating as we anticipate it. If it doesn't go as anticipated, then the responsible thing is to adjust it, eliminate some planned expenditures, rearrange others. It is NEVER responsible to just increase spending and plow straight on ahead as if no deficit was accruing.

 

[Vast LWC]

You're missing the point. IF we don't have the money to cover whatever is in our budget, we don't spend all our budget. We cover what we absolutely have to cover, and if there is insufficient funds to cover our legal/ethical obligations, then we may have to borrow.

The budget is NOT A MANDATE either for my household nor the Federal Government. It is a spending PLAN contingent on income and outgo accumulating as we anticipate it. If it doesn't go as anticipated, then the responsible thing is to adjust it, eliminate some planned expenditures, rearrange others. It is NEVER responsible to just increase spending and plow straight on ahead as if no deficit was accruing.

I agree. But my original point was, in summary:

If we want to eliminate the deficit, we will have to reduce the budget by 1/3, which is roughly equal to the amount of the deficit.

To do this would require radical cuts in either the military, social security, or Medicare, possibly in all 3.

Or we can cut the remaining 1/3 of the budget altogether, and completely paralyze every other function of the government, which would cause a crisis of EPIC proportions.

OR we can raise taxes until the deficit is covered, including extra taxes that would have to be imposed to cover the loss in GNP.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, which of the above choices would you prefer?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're missing the point. IF we don't have the money to cover whatever is in our budget, we don't spend all our budget. We cover what we absolutely have to cover, and if there is insufficient funds to cover our legal/ethical obligations, then we may have to borrow.

The budget is NOT A MANDATE either for my household nor the Federal Government. It is a spending PLAN contingent on income and outgo accumulating as we anticipate it. If it doesn't go as anticipated, then the responsible thing is to adjust it, eliminate some planned expenditures, rearrange others. It is NEVER responsible to just increase spending and plow straight on ahead as if no deficit was accruing.

I agree. But my original point was, in summary:

If we want to eliminate the deficit, we will have to reduce the budget by 1/3, which is roughly equal to the amount of the deficit.

To do this would require radical cuts in either the military, social security, or Medicare, possibly in all 3.

Or we can cut the remaining 1/3 of the budget altogether, and completely paralyze every other function of the government, which would cause a crisis of EPIC proportions.

OR we can raise taxes until the deficit is covered, including extra taxes that would have to be imposed to cover the loss in GNP.

Or we can demand that Congress and the President implement policy that will inspire and promote real economic growth in the private sector that generates real new wealth and funnels new real dollars into the public treasury. That won't happen by taking out of one pot just to put it into another as TARP and the stimulus package did.

And we can improve on that by freezing and then eliminating government functions that should never have been in the Federal Government to begin with, by slowly and carefully shifting responsibility to all those entitlements back to the states and local communities where they belong, and by doing some serious auditing of the military to eradicate most of the blatant gross waste that can be corrected without taking anything away from our national security or the men and women who provide it.

Cutting the budget won't accomplish a thing if it doesn't result in cutting down the bloated Federal government and eliminating expenses that the Federal government doesn't have to spend.

Eliminating the deficit means spending no more than we take into the national treasury.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hell, even if you cut the deficit by 75%, we'd STILL need to raise the debt ceiling.

Because the retards in Congress WON'T STOP BORROWING FROM THE CHINESE, THE FED AND OUR ******* GRANDCHILDREN!!!

Let me say this in big letters so you understand...
What part of THAT don't you understand you dumb ass!!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

To do this would require radical cuts in either the military, social security, or Medicare, possibly in all 3.

Wrong again......discretionary spending...do you understand? Discretionary spending means shit that is nice to have but in some cases not really necessary....i.e. PORK!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

and by doing some serious auditing of the military to eradicate most of the blatant gross waste that can be corrected without taking anything away from our national security or the men and women who provide it.

This is a perilous route as Bill Clinton proved. Clinton "privatized" military logistical support because it was so much cheaper than having the military provide for themselves. Everything was fine until the troops went into combat. Then the civilian contractor employees balked at the risk and the military was forced to shift personnel into logistical support positions for which they were poorly trained.

This thread is extremely deceptive for it was the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly to spend more - and without the funding - on the vote in question.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hell, even if you cut the deficit by 75%, we'd STILL need to raise the debt ceiling.

Because the retards in Congress WON'T STOP BORROWING FROM THE CHINESE, THE FED AND OUR ******* GRANDCHILDREN!!!

Let me say this in big letters so you understand...
What part of THAT don't you understand you dumb ass!!!!!

OK, first of all, you are only posting one sentence of a long post, which is a no no as per the board rules.

Secondly, you are proving my point in said post by posting the same crap over and over again without reading anyone else's contributions to the debate.

Which makes you a troll and a moron. So please, stop trying to get attention by posting in Red 20 point fonts, it's embarrassing.

 

[Vast LWC]

To do this would require radical cuts in either the military, social security, or Medicare, possibly in all 3.

Wrong again......discretionary spending...do you understand? Discretionary spending means shit that is nice to have but in some cases not really necessary....i.e. PORK!!!!!!!!!!

READ THE ******* POSTS PRIOR TO YOURS.

2/3 of the Budget is made up of Military Spending, Social Security, Medicare and Interest on pre-existing debt..

The deficit is equal to 40% of the budget.

Now, you could eliminate the entire government, and live in anarchy, with no roads, no disaster relief, no unemployment, etc, etc...

AND YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO CUT SOME OF THE ABOVE PROGRAMS.

"PORK" makes up .6% of the budget.

Learn to do math.

And "discretionary spending" is "discretionary", because the Government is not legally bound to spend it. It includes things like Roads, schools, emergency medical care at disaster sites, the legislative branch, the judiciary, etc, etc.

 

[Vast LWC]

and by doing some serious auditing of the military to eradicate most of the blatant gross waste that can be corrected without taking anything away from our national security or the men and women who provide it.

This is a perilous route as Bill Clinton proved. Clinton "privatized" military logistical support because it was so much cheaper than having the military provide for themselves. Everything was fine until the troops went into combat. Then the civilian contractor employees balked at the risk and the military was forced to shift personnel into logistical support positions for which they were poorly trained.

This thread is extremely deceptive for it was the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly to spend more - and without the funding - on the vote in question.

In what way, specifically, did the democrats decide to "spend more"?

You mean to fund this year's budget at about the same level of the previous year? That would be "spending the same".

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hell, even if you cut the deficit by 75%, we'd STILL need to raise the debt ceiling.

Because the retards in Congress WON'T STOP BORROWING FROM THE CHINESE, THE FED AND OUR ******* GRANDCHILDREN!!!

Let me say this in big letters so you understand...
What part of THAT don't you understand you dumb ass!!!!!

OK, first of all, you are only posting one sentence of a long post, which is a no no as per the board rules.

Secondly, you are proving my point in said post by posting the same crap over and over again without reading anyone else's contributions to the debate.

Which makes you a troll and a moron. So please, stop trying to get attention by posting in Red 20 point fonts, it's embarrassing.

Speaking of pathetic trolls...please look in the mirror.....and yes...your idiotic statements are embarrasing to the human race. One has to wonder how you became so stupid...is it genetic or is it due to your environment.

 

[Charles Stucker]

In what way, specifically, did the democrats decide to "spend more"?

You mean to fund this year's budget at about the same level of the previous year? That would be "spending the same".

That is the kind of jackass politicized doublespeak which gets the country into debt.
The vote was whether to increase the national debt ceiling. One party, the Democrats voted overwhelmingly YES while the other, the Republicans voted no.
Or this more Obama using the Blame Bush defense?