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.
Not quite. For one thing, it was a Republican senate from 1980 to 1986, so that means that the GOP controlled the White House veto power and the Senate. The Dems could do absolutely nothing unless the Republicans signed off on it, and we all know that they wanted defense spending and tax cuts for the rich. The GOP had a chance to show their budget-cutting credentials from 2000 to 2006 and ended up bloating the budget. The facts do not square with the untruths that you and other GOP/Tea Party supporters keep repeating.
So you blame Obama for the trillions of dollars he's rung up since his election?
So its your position now that the profits from TARP just "disappeared" in 2009, and suddenly in 2009, tax cuts became a cost rather than a generator to the economy? Wow.. what happened to cause this sudden change in your opinion?
I am not getting what you are saying. The projections are the contributions of different factors, thats all. Wars and tax cuts take a big bite of the pie.
I am not getting what you are saying. The projections are the contributions of different factors, thats all. Wars and tax cuts take a big bite of the pie.
If the CBO said that the tax cuts GENERATED revenues, then whats to account for them all of a suddenly in 2009 being calculated at the exact opposite in order to be a cost?
If the CBO said that the tax cuts GENERATED revenues, then whats to account for them all of a suddenly in 2009 being calculated at the exact opposite in order to be a cost?
Answer of course is your chart is a LIE..
The chart does show a declining deficit due to tarp (09-10) - or did you misss that?
The chart does show a declining deficit due to tarp (09-10) - or did you misss that?
Actually thats also a lie, but thats a different topic.. Looking at ONLY the tax cuts. AGAIN, in 2006 the CBO said the tax cuts GENERATED HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in tax revenues. But your chart shows in 2009 that its a COST, which is the OPPOSITE of what the CBO said of them just in 2006. Tell me again why all of a sudden the tax cuts flipped from GENERATING money, to COSTING money?
Actually thats also a lie, but thats a different topic.. Looking at ONLY the tax cuts. AGAIN, in 2006 the CBO said the tax cuts GENERATED HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in tax revenues. But your chart shows in 2009 that its a COST, which is the OPPOSITE of what the CBO said of them just in 2006. Tell me again why all of a sudden the tax cuts flipped from GENERATING money, to COSTING money?
Again, the chart is a LIE.
I think we have reached an impasse. Again, the chart is for projections from 2009 onwards - forget about what CBO said for 2006. Maybe, they should have shown a 06-19 chart and differentiated between tax cuts and the actual impact of them via-a-vis the revenue.
Besides, TARP profits are MUCH smaller than the 2 big brown swatches shown. These browns are caused by wars (W, O) and tax cuts (W,O). OP's article was related to impact of the policies and the 80% or whatever number was based on that. However, the discussion changed to calculating debt under each president / congress etc. These projections are about impact of policies regardles of who is in power.
I think we have reached an impasse. Again, the chart is for projections from 2009 onwards - forget about what CBO said for 2006. Maybe, they should have shown a 06-19 chart and differentiated between tax cuts and the actual impact of them via-a-vis the revenue.
No, I dont need to forget about what the CBO said in 2006 because its VERY relevant. If in 2006 they GENERATED money, then in 2009+ the same would be true. They dont suddenly switch from being an economic stimulus to not being one.. Thats ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
Besides, TARP profits are MUCH smaller than the 2 big brown swatches shown. These brown are caused by wars (W, O)
I'm not talking about TARP, but the wars were ended by Obama, right? So if Obama ended the wars, how will the cost continue to be added going forward and then blamed on Bushs policies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
and tax cuts (W,O).
Again, I linked you right to the CBO report which shows $252B in MORE revenues because of the cuts, but your graph shows them as LESS revenues. There is nearly a TRILLION dollar difference going out, so AGAIN, how do you account for a SURPLUS from the stimulus, to a COST? And further, how the hell do you blame Bush for them going out to 2019?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
OP's article was related to impact of the policies and the 80% or whatever number was based on that.
The OP's numbers were just as off as the graph you keep posting, pretending it holds value..
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
However, the discussion changed to calculating debt under each president / congress etc. These projections are about impact of policies regardles of who is in power.
Then why is the chart titled "Bush Policies Driving Record Deficits"?
Wrong.. thats not at all how they had "surpluses".. They had surpluses because they ONLY counted PUBLIC debt, and ignored intragovernmental borrowing.
To compare this to a household, they borrowed against their home, and because they had cash in the bank they claimed a surplus, ignoring the huge mortgage they just took out.
Having cuts in spending doesnt create surpluses. If it did, we could just project doubling of federal spending yearly, and then surprise, we didnt.. woo hoo, surpluses.. only a silly fool would buy that one.
Once again, the budget, deficits, and surpluses have absolutely nothing to do with the National Debt.
If Congress passes a budget for $3 trillion, and spends $2.8 trillion, they will have a $200 billion surplus. If actual revenues (which is not known at the time the budget is enacted into law) was only $2.5 trillion, then another $300 billion is added to the National Debt, despite having a budget surplus.
Actual Revenues - Actual Spending = Debt (if negative), Credit (if positive)
Budget - Actual Spending = Deficit (if negative), Surplus (if positive)
No, I dont need to forget about what the CBO said in 2006 because its VERY relevant. If in 2006 they GENERATED money, then in 2009+ the same would be true. They dont suddenly switch from being an economic stimulus to not being one.. Thats ridiculous.
...because they are not talking about 2006. In 2009-10, they do show tarp reducing deficits.
I'm not talking about TARP, but the wars were ended by Obama, right? So if Obama ended the wars, how will the cost continue to be added going forward and then blamed on Bushs policies? ...wars were ended?? News to me. I dont think the the industrial complex will let either party get out so quickly.
Again, I linked you right to the CBO report which shows $252B in MORE revenues because of the cuts, but your graph shows them as LESS revenues. There is nearly a TRILLION dollar difference going out, so AGAIN, how do you account for a SURPLUS from the stimulus, to a COST? And further, how the hell do you blame Bush for them going out to 2019?
....... these are projections. End wars today, hike taxes today, and the brown part disappears quickly.
The OP's numbers were just as off as the graph you keep posting, pretending it holds value..
Then why is the chart titled "Bush Policies Driving Record Deficits"?
...because they do seem to be driving the deficits even though they are counted under obama's tenure
Once again, the budget, deficits, and surpluses have absolutely nothing to do with the National Debt.
If Congress passes a budget for $3 trillion, and spends $2.8 trillion, they will have a $200 billion surplus. If actual revenues (which is not known at the time the budget is enacted into law) was only $2.5 trillion, then another $300 billion is added to the National Debt, despite having a budget surplus.
Actual Revenues - Actual Spending = Debt (if negative), Credit (if positive)
Budget - Actual Spending = Deficit (if negative), Surplus (if positive)
No they do not have a $200B surplus if they only spent $2.8T instead of the budgeted $3T. Where on gods earth did you get your education from?
According to the House Joint Economic Committee, a Surplus is It should be pointed out that "surplus" here and in common usage means when the cash revenues received by the federal government in a given time period exceeds the cash outlays in that same time period.
Budget Surpluses, Deficits and Government Spending (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/surplus2/surplus2.htm - broken link)
Do you want to tell me what your qualifications are that you think you are more qualified than the Chairman of the Joint Economics Committee?
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.
