Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But here's a small example...tell me...when Bush puts forth a 10 year budget in 2001 starting w/ year 2001...when does it expire? And if all of the accounts payable are due in 2010 when does that payment have to be paid, and when does it come from the bottom of the page to the top?
:.
nope, I think you need the crash course..............bush's '10 year budget' is a PROJECTION...just like clintons '10 year budget' from 1995 (The CBO reported Clinton's 10-year "balanced budget plan" would leave a $209 billion deficit in 2005. And, nearly two-thirds of the spending cuts in his budget was postponed until the last two years of his seven year plan -- long after he was gone from office.).........just like obama's 10 year plan has him cutting the DEFICT in half, from the supersize he made it...even obama is calling for .5-.75 trillion dollars defictit for the next 10 OR MORE years
But here's a small example...tell me...when Bush puts forth a 10 year budget in 2001 starting w/ year 2001...when does it expire? And if all of the accounts payable are due in 2010 when does that payment have to be paid, and when does it come from the bottom of the page to the top?
WTF are you talking about?
There is no "10 year budget" that notion is absolutely ridiculous. Every year the president submits a budget to Congress, parts will be added, deleted, changed, adjusted, etc. then passed. The president signs off on it and it becomes law. This happens EVERY YEAR. If it does not happen, no federal agencies or programs get their money, simple as that.
The ONLY thing that comes close to a "10 year budget" is the ESTIMATES by the administration or the CBO which PROJECTS future tax revenue, expenditures, and the budget deficit for the next decade. It is simply a PROJECTION, a GUESS based on present numbers. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to write a single budget that spans a 10 year period, there is no way in hell you could know how much population growth would occur, how much economic growth would effect tax revenue, or know which programs/agencies will need more or less funding.
So unless you have something to substantiate your argument that Bush passed a 10 year budget in 2001, I suggest you drop the subject before embarrassing yourself further.
And the argument for extending tax cuts for everyone else is?????
Don't forget, three quarters of the tax cuts went to "the middle class".
In mere size, in scope the tax breaks went to a less than 2% of the tax paying population.
Why keep those tax breaks in place putting $700 BILLION more into the debt, so that they can keep on AVG. $100,000 more in their pockets of taxpayers who make between $1M and $6.5M/yr?
Those who make between $250,000 and $500,000 would pay an extra...wait for it...$532.
What's more important...letting those who make over $1,000,000 keep huge tax breaks, or those who make less than $250,000 keep that $532 on average. That's what you're going to take to the American people? You want to fight to keep the tax breaks so that people making over $1M dollars per year can keep their $100,000...versus people making less than a combined $250,000 can keep their $532. Please...please...keep making that argument.
Txgolfer130 has seriously mis-stated what my column says. The $2.7 trillion is NOT about tax revenues, it is income. The measure, using Mr. Bush's no ifs, ands or buts promise that (even though the 2000 stock bubble had burst) if we elected him and implemented his tax cuts our incomes would go up and we would be wealthier and have more jobs.
Interesting that this post was swamped so quickly.
This entire topic was based on false representation, and degenerated into a general outlet for the OP to Bush-bash.
Txgolfer130 has seriously mis-stated what my column says. The $2.7 trillion is NOT about tax revenues, it is income. The measure, using Mr. Bush's no ifs, ands or buts promise that (even though the 2000 stock bubble had burst) if we elected him and implemented his tax cuts our incomes would go up and we would be wealthier and have more jobs.
Mr. Johnston, first welcome. Second, if incomes are up, are not tax revenues up as well? You are in the premise of your article using the complete 2008 TAX DATA to lay the foundation for your argument. Hence, if income is down, which is clearly the case, tax revenue is down as well compared directly as you do to the 2000 levels. Ergo, the delta between the two scenarios show that tax revenue and income BOTH were less under Bush policies, helping to put us deeper into the hole we are digging ourselves out of.
No, you and your head in the sand mentality are what is preposterous.
Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html - broken link)
Preposterous?! No...down right treasonous and treacherous. The men who have now tied us down in a never ending war, abandoned their posts when the country needed them, and expected them to protect them. They were negligent and complicit in their actions and deeds, are should be held responsible as accomplices after the fact of those who perpetrated the attacks on our country on 11 Sep 2001. And by your statements you do America harm.
What do you think Bush did after just taking office in 2001, when confronted with these types of terrorism threat assessments? I think it is fair to say that he asked his CIA chief what he thought about them. Bush kept Clinton's CIA chief. The same CIA chief who told us all that the next terror attack was going to be a cyber attack, and told Bush that the case for Saddam having WMDs was a "slam dunk".
First, why show only the threat assessments starting from 1999? Was it because president Clinton saw these types of threat assessments, and that since Clinton took no action, it would blow holes in your argument?
Maybe Bush was busy reading the final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress in 2000, which made NO mention of al Qaeda, and only mentioned bi Laden four times.
Every time I see an argument like yours, i have to think what the response from the left would have been. Let's say its July 2001, the media is still hyping about the "stolen election" in Florida, and here comes Bush, frog marching nine terrorists who Bush claims were going to fly airplanes into buildings. I'm sure you all would have hailed Bush as our savior, and not attacked him for making it all up to make himself look good.
So what is the solution? Give your entire friggin paycheck to the gov.
Not even close, but that seems to be all conservatives hear. How about going back to 2000 tax rates on those making over $250,000 per year, and at the same time decreasing the debt level by $700 BILLION dollars.
Nah? I know...you one day want/hope/aspire to be in the top 2% of ALL incomes in the U.S. But the chances of that happening are less than anyone of us walking into a MLB clubhouse, starting and going on to become a hall of famer.
But one can HOPE...but in the mean time while you're dreaming, how about letting the rest of us back in reality land work on putting the country back on to stable footing? M-kay?
This country will never turn itself around and fix itself if people spend their timing blaming one party or the other.
Do you guys think it doesn't count if "the other guy" did it ?
The way I see it is that BOTH parties contributed to our situation. Does it have to be 50-50 ??
I look at that huge debt/deficit number for the USofA and I don't think "D" or "R"..I think "What has our government done to us?"
I thought the income of the people was thier own, and not the property of the federal government. This is how liberals really think. They presume that tax cuts "cost the government money". Newsflash- it is not "thier money" in the first place.
Funny how you have no idea how your country works, and love the omission of your endorsement before 2009.
Glad to see you clearly show how 10 year budgets can affect other administrations, especially when debts are pushed off to be paid at the end of the budget, rather than on a year per year basis as the rest of America has to.
Clearly shows how Republican's endorse LTCM and Enron accounting as they engage in it themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
