Time to start saying "NO"

[Big Black Dog]

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?

 

[ba1614]

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.

 

[rayboyusmc]

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.

 

[rayboyusmc]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

You forgot the money we spent on 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

You forgot the money we spent on 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts

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

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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:

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.

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

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.

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

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

It was 1.7 trillion.

Have a source for that other than right-wing bloggers?

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

That's a bogus argument. For starters, you're wanting to look at the war over a eight year window, but you want to compare it to the cost of health care over a ten year window. Furthermore, the wars were cheaper for 2001 and 2002 because we were only in Afghanistan. So really, you're wanting to compare the ten-year cost of health care to the six year cost of the wars.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

since you want to be techcal its only a 9 year span that Charlie Rangle's report where you got the 1.043 trillion dollar number from is talking about.

Even if i use your number your argument about the wars costing more is still wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK. Here is a "no" to the old Republican neo-con wing that destroyed a Presidency and a working majority in both federal chambers, along with tanking the economy.

"No."

 

[Polk]

since you want to be techcal its only a 9 year span that Charlie Rangle's report where you got the 1.043 trillion dollar number from is talking about.

Even if i use your number your argument about the wars costing more is still wrong.

How do you figure that 140 billion a year is less than 100 billion a year? Also, the 1.043 isn't Charlie Rangel's number. That's the CBO's number.

 

[alan1]

OK. Here is a "no" to the old Republican neo-con wing that destroyed a Presidency and a working majority in both federal chambers, along with tanking the economy.

"No."

Interestingly enough, the "working majority" in both houses of congress during the Bush administration was never a super majority. In other words, the republicans didn't have the power to ram anything through congress. Nope, they didn't, they accomplished things by using bi-partisanship. Look what that bi-partisanship got us.

 

[Polk]

OK. Here is a "no" to the old Republican neo-con wing that destroyed a Presidency and a working majority in both federal chambers, along with tanking the economy.

"No."

Interestingly enough, the "working majority" in both houses of congress during the Bush administration was never a super majority. In other words, the republicans didn't have the power to ram anything through congress. Nope, they didn't, they accomplished things by using bi-partisanship. Look what that bi-partisanship got us.

No, they passed things because the Democrats didn't filibuster everything that moved.

 

[alan1]

OK. Here is a "no" to the old Republican neo-con wing that destroyed a Presidency and a working majority in both federal chambers, along with tanking the economy.

"No."

Interestingly enough, the "working majority" in both houses of congress during the Bush administration was never a super majority. In other words, the republicans didn't have the power to ram anything through congress. Nope, they didn't, they accomplished things by using bi-partisanship. Look what that bi-partisanship got us.

No, they passed things because the Democrats didn't filibuster everything that moved.

The resolutions to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were both passed with democrat support and votes. Every budget during Mr Bush's term was passed with democrat votes. It was bi-partisanship.
You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

 

[Polk]

Interestingly enough, the "working majority" in both houses of congress during the Bush administration was never a super majority. In other words, the republicans didn't have the power to ram anything through congress. Nope, they didn't, they accomplished things by using bi-partisanship. Look what that bi-partisanship got us.

No, they passed things because the Democrats didn't filibuster everything that moved.

The resolutions to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were both passed with democrat support and votes. Every budget during Mr Bush's term was passed with democrat votes. It was bi-partisanship.
You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

The bi-partisan double standard. If the Republicans pass a bill with one or two Democratic votes, it's bi-partisan. If the Democrats pass a bill with one or two Republican votes, it's not considered bi-partisan. Furthermore, the Democrats must make concessions to get more Republican votes, even though the remaining members of the Republican caucus are more conservative than the few Democratic votes the Republicans picked up were liberal.

 

[KittenKoder]

Fact: it was time to say no a long time ago, but thanks to the momentum of Obama's idiotic decisions we can now form a nonpartisan group that will gain the power to rebuild the government, restoring the original form and power it had, giving us citizens the power once again.

 

[alan1]

No, they passed things because the Democrats didn't filibuster everything that moved.

The resolutions to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were both passed with democrat support and votes. Every budget during Mr Bush's term was passed with democrat votes. It was bi-partisanship.
You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

The bi-partisan double standard. If the Republicans pass a bill with one or two Democratic votes, it's bi-partisan. If the Democrats pass a bill with one or two Republican votes, it's not considered bi-partisan. Furthermore, the Democrats must make concessions to get more Republican votes, even though the remaining members of the Republican caucus are more conservative than the few Democratic votes the Republicans picked up were liberal.

You should stop spinning, you are getting dizzy.