PDA

View Full Version : The "tax and spend Dems" GOP loves to bash just reduced the deficit by 13%



Stlrs4Life
09-14-2010, 05:29 PM
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/tax-and-spend-dems-gop-loves-bash-just-redu


September 14, 2010 08:00 AM The "tax and spend Dems" GOP loves to bash just reduced the deficit by 13% (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/tax-and-spend-dems-gop-loves-bash-just-redu)

By karoli

That's right. In spite of the stimulus bill, in spite of TARP, in spite of the GM/AIG/Wall Street bailouts, the first Obama budget (2010) has closed the deficit by 13%, according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html).

The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month, smaller than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time.
This is not to say that all is hunky-dorry in budgetland, yet:

The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record. The Obama administration faces the challenge of trying to limit the shortfall while stimulating an economy with joblessness close to 10 percent.
Now remember this when the debate over tax cuts ratchets up beyond what it is right now and Republicans refuse to admit that tax cuts for the wealthy balloon the deficit even more with no pay-fors. John Boehner's admission that he would support the compromise that extends tax cuts without the benefits for the super-rich folks has the GOP in a lather (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/wh-from-obama-on-down-well-be-hitting-boehner-on-tax-cuts.php), scrambling.
Here's hoping the Democrats don't screw this up (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/house-dems-will-not-force-vote-on-middle-class-tax-cuts.php).

smokin3000gt
09-14-2010, 05:57 PM
So they dig a big hole, throw a shovel full back in and you're happy about this? Here's a lovely read on the million dollar 'You should wash your balls after sex' program. :doh:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/75198

Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program
Monday, September 13, 2010
By Matt Cover (http://cnsnews.com/source/73645)



(CNSNews.com) – The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex.
The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study (http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7814411&icde=5021426) examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011.
“NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications,” the grant abstract states. “We propose to evaluate the feasibility of a post-coital genital hygiene study among men unwilling to be circumcised in Orange Farm, South Africa.”
Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow.
“The aim of the proposed feasibility study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a post-coital male genital hygiene procedure, which participants will be asked to practice immediately post-coitus or at least 12 hours after,” reads the abstract.
Entitled “Community-Based HIV VCT: South Africa,” the name of the broader umbrella project, the program plans to test how well received the penis-washing regimen is among South African men.
If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections.
“If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study,” the grant says.
The study’s lead investigator Dr. Thomas J. Coates (http://idmed.mednet.ucla.edu/faculty/Thomas_Coates.htm) was the fourth highest-funded researcher in the country in 2002 and is currently conducting HIV research on three continents.
CNSNews.com asked both Coates and NIMH the following question: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”
Coates, who was unavailable for comment, directed CNSNews.com to ask grant-related questions of his assistant, Darya Freedman, who did not respond.
The NIMH also declined to respond to CNSNews.com’s question.

NJarhead
09-14-2010, 06:28 PM
The sad part is, the Dems honestly don't believe that they'll be the death of us all.

X-Terminator
09-14-2010, 07:28 PM
Um, Bush's tax cuts were just for the wealthy. EVERYONE benefited in some way from his tax cuts. The problem is and always was increased spending, and THAT is what caused the deficits. They won't mention that, though - they'd just rather blame it on those damned tax cuts...as if it's evil to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Plus, it's hard for me to believe that Democrats are jumping up and down with glee at the possibility of a $1.34 trillion budget deficit and unemployment still at 10%. That ain't anything to gloat about. Their solution? More spending! Yeah, that'll work. :frusty:

Yeah, just wait until they allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and the "rich" have to take it up the ass again. And then watch them lay more people off and ship more jobs overseas in order to save money and further compounding the problem with the economy. Not only that, there are a lot of people with big inheritances that are trying to get it below a million bucks so that they don't get hit with the 55% death tax if they do let those tax cuts expire and it goes back up to that rate. That doesn't just include those "evil rich" CEOs, but a LOT of people who had worked their asses off and invested wisely in order to provide their families with a nice nest egg when they pass away. Yeah, let's punish them because they were able to successfully prepare for retirement and beyond. :doh:

GBMelBlount
09-14-2010, 07:35 PM
The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month, smaller than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009,

Nice read Dom. So the federal deficit was only 90 billion last month instead of 103 billion?

So is that the "13% cut" you are excited about?

Ummmm, OK.....lol

Talk about missing the big picture.....

Vincent
09-14-2010, 08:15 PM
Imagine what a realization of the term "profligacy" would do to the liberal mind. I mean, if that was possible.

"Reduced the deficit" is like saying "I saved money at a sale", only "stupider".

Stlrs4Life
09-14-2010, 10:01 PM
Um, Bush's tax cuts were just for the wealthy. EVERYONE benefited in some way from his tax cuts. The problem is and always was increased spending, and THAT is what caused the deficits. They won't mention that, though - they'd just rather blame it on those damned tax cuts...as if it's evil to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Plus, it's hard for me to believe that Democrats are jumping up and down with glee at the possibility of a $1.34 trillion budget deficit and unemployment still at 10%. That ain't anything to gloat about. Their solution? More spending! Yeah, that'll work. :frusty:

Yeah, just wait until they allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and the "rich" have to take it up the ass again. And then watch them lay more people off and ship more jobs overseas in order to save money and further compounding the problem with the economy. Not only that, there are a lot of people with big inheritances that are trying to get it below a million bucks so that they don't get hit with the 55% death tax if they do let those tax cuts expire and it goes back up to that rate. That doesn't just include those "evil rich" CEOs, but a LOT of people who had worked their asses off and invested wisely in order to provide their families with a nice nest egg when they pass away. Yeah, let's punish them because they were able to successfully prepare for retirement and beyond. :doh:


BS, Find me the stats on how many jobs they created due to the tax cuts? They pretty much pocketed every cent they made. Tax cuts didn't include everyone.

smokin3000gt
09-14-2010, 10:08 PM
BS, Find me the stats on how many jobs they created due to the tax cuts? They pretty much pocketed every cent they made. Tax cuts didn't include everyone.

You know the first thing I do when funds are tight? I CUT HOURS AND LAY OFF DRIVERS! Find me stats how laid off employees help turn the economy around.

NJarhead
09-14-2010, 11:04 PM
BS, Find me the stats on how many jobs they created due to the tax cuts? They pretty much pocketed every cent they made. Tax cuts didn't include everyone.

Have you ever taken a macro or micro-economics course? They reason I ask is because this is basic shit we're talking about here.

X-Terminator
09-14-2010, 11:21 PM
BS, Find me the stats on how many jobs they created due to the tax cuts? They pretty much pocketed every cent they made. Tax cuts didn't include everyone.

And you can, of course, prove that they pocketed all of that money, right?

Dude, I have never owned a business, but you cannot honestly tell me that forcing a business to pay even more in taxes, thus increasing the cost of doing business, possibly helps the economy, and that cutting their taxes hurts it. If you make it less costly to do business, then there will be more incentive to do business, which leads to more jobs, which leads to more people working. This isn't rocket science, Dom. It's basic freaking economics.

Again, the problem wasn't the tax cuts. The problem was the massive increase in spending and nothing being done to curtail it. You cannot cut taxes while increasing spending. Basically every spending bill that crossed Bush's desk, he signed into law regardless of the amount of needless pork attached to it. And the same thing is happening under Obama, except he's put it into Ludicrous Speed at a time when we absolutely cannot afford it.

Tax cuts didn't include everyone? Then why did my tax bracket drop to 10%? If they repeal the Bush tax cuts, that rate goes back up to 15%, and every subsequent rate goes back up to the pre-Bush rates. And that is somehow a good thing? That's OK - it's looking like the tax cuts are going to be repealed except in very limited circumstances, because the only way Obama is ever going to pay for all of this spending is massive tax increases. Good luck trying to sell the public on that, when so many are worried about how they're going to pay their bills or even if they'll have a job next month.

Here's the bottom line, Dom - this is not about Democrats or Republicans. Both deserve a great deal of blame for the mess that we're in. It's about demanding fiscal responsibility and accountability in government, at least it is for me. Everyone, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, should be standing arm and arm on this issue.

EDIT: Here you go, Dom. A GREAT source for tracking tax revenues to all levels of government as well as the deficit for each year: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2005_0.html. Lots of interesting information there, such as the amount of tax revenue increasing every year after Bush implemented his tax cuts, and how the deficit dropped 3 straight years from 2005-2007. Betcha you won't hear anyone mention THAT.

Vincent
09-14-2010, 11:38 PM
BS, Find me the stats on how many jobs they created due to the tax cuts? They pretty much pocketed every cent they made. Tax cuts didn't include everyone.

You don't understand capitalism, do you?

It's fair to say "they pocketed every cent they made". Why wouldn't they? They earned it.

No, the tax cuts didn't include everyone. 60% of the population doesn't pay tax. How do you cut the taxes of someone that doesn't pay tax?

Class baiting doesn't work any better than race baiting. Its all the product of flawed "thinking".

Wallace108
09-14-2010, 11:52 PM
How do you cut the taxes of someone that doesn't pay tax?

That's almost like giving tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes. Wait, they did that. :doh2:

Vis
09-15-2010, 08:59 AM
Go, Dom, Go

zulater
09-15-2010, 10:14 AM
When the rich are punished they spend less money. They stop buying boats, so sad right? Well it is if you build boats, sell lumber or supplies to boat builders, 9or truck those supplies. the rich stop eating out as much guess who pays. the employees at that four star resturaunt that's who. I work with thoroubred race horses, less disposable income for the wealthy equals less race horses, , which in turn means less business for blacksmiths, the guy who makes his supplies, feed companies, tack supply stores, horse transporters, breeding farms, barn builders, etc... then of course a downturn in racing means less live racing days which means less tax money generated from purse money and muteal handle. Andof course race tracks employ numerous people in all capacities, they're jobs and salaries decrease when the industry suffers from disposable income being taken away from the wealthy. the car market, airplane industry, you name it, you punish the wealthy and economy suffers.

Vis
09-15-2010, 10:37 AM
When the rich are punished they spend less money. They stop buying boats, so sad right? Well it is if you build boats, sell lumber or supplies to boat builders, 9or truck those supplies. the rich stop eating out as much guess who pays. the employees at that four star resturaunt that's who. I work with thoroubred race horses, less disposable income for the wealthy equals less race horses, , which in turn means less business for blacksmiths, the guy who makes his supplies, feed companies, tack supply stores, horse transporters, breeding farms, barn builders, etc... then of course a downturn in racing means less live racing days which means less tax money generated from purse money and muteal handle. Andof course race tracks employ numerous people in all capacities, they're jobs and salaries decrease when the industry suffers from disposable income being taken away from the wealthy. the car market, airplane industry, you name it, you punish the wealthy and economy suffers.


money flows up

LLT
09-15-2010, 10:39 AM
money flows up

Soooooo....you must mean that all the newly unemployed dont have money to be taxed?

LLT
09-15-2010, 10:44 AM
Nice read Dom. So the federal deficit was only 90 billion last month instead of 103 billion?

So is that the "13% cut" you are excited about?

Ummmm, OK.....lol

Talk about missing the big picture.....

BINGO!!!!

We are supposed to forget about the fact that the deficit has quadrupled...Its the equivalent of your wife telling you that she spent $2,000 more than you made this week...but thats OKAY...because last week she overspent by $4,000. Heck, she cut your deficit by 50%!!!!

Here is the truth behind the slanted article....look at the deficit since 2008, when this administration took office.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit.jpg

Stlrs4Life
09-15-2010, 03:10 PM
That graph is the slanted one, the War deficit was added to the sta after Obama came into office.

Vis
09-15-2010, 03:19 PM
That graph is the slanted one, the War deficit was added to the sta after Obama came into office.

Obama should just hide it like Bush did to make the right happy.

NJarhead
09-15-2010, 03:21 PM
That graph is the slanted one, the War deficit was added to the sta after Obama came into office.

And how much does a war cost? Versus say, YEAR round deployment/world-wide cooperative training with other nations for ALL of our forces annually? Any idea? And do you have any idea as to how many and the magnitude of these multiple training exercises we conduct around the the world annually? I'll bet you haven't a clue.

Wars happen. And I said earlier, if Clinton would have taken care of business we would likely not be at war.

Vis
09-15-2010, 03:25 PM
And how much does a war cost? Versus say, YEAR round deployment/world-wide cooperative training with other nations for ALL of our forces annually? Any idea? And do you have any idea as to how many and the magnitude of these multiple training exercises we conduct around the the world annually? I'll bet you haven't a clue.

Wars happen. And I said earlier, if Clinton would have taken care of business we would likely not be at war.

Does hiding the cost of the war off book just happen too? The issue here is what Obama caused. He didn't cause this, he's just accounting for it.

7SteelGal43
09-15-2010, 03:25 PM
This is not to say that all is hunky-dorry in budgetland, yet:


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/Redcap557/derp/derp3.jpg

Vis
09-15-2010, 03:27 PM
There's thoughtful analysis, thanks.

NJarhead
09-15-2010, 03:34 PM
Does hiding the cost of the war off book just happen too? The issue here is what Obama caused. He didn't cause this, he's just accounting for it.
Did you see what I was responding too? Obama also claims that his policies have "stabilized the economy" which a colossal joke.

And who "hid the cost of war" on you Vis? :rolleyes:

7SteelGal43
09-15-2010, 03:36 PM
There's thoughtful analysis, thanks.



:sofunny:


Forgive me. It's been a long and busy day and that's all I had left after covering an overlapping topic in that other thread. :drink:

urgle burgle
09-16-2010, 01:28 AM
just an interesting tidbit of information i thought i'd throw out there.

http://meetthefacts.com/2010/07/14/fact-check-ed-gillspie-after-the-bush-tax-cuts-there-were-52-months-of-continuous-job-creation/

while there are many specifics that can be bannied about during bush jr.'s term(of who i am not a particular fan), what gets lost is between roughtly 2003-and mid 2006 the economy was doing pretty well. Mind you this was after the dot com bubble burst and and after 9/11. Not defending everything else, but, as with all things perspective has to be given. All facts should be known, not just the ones we like/dislike. continue

GBMelBlount
09-16-2010, 07:52 AM
Vis

Go, Dom, Go



money flows up


Talk about an efficient pot stirrer. :lol:

GBMelBlount
09-16-2010, 07:56 AM
No, the tax cuts didn't include everyone. 60% of the population doesn't pay tax.

Imagine a ship with a life boat that is bigger than the ship....

urgle burgle
09-17-2010, 01:33 PM
Imagine a ship with a life boat that is bigger than the ship....

great analogy! props to you, sir.

GBMelBlount
09-17-2010, 10:31 PM
great analogy! props to you, sir.

Thanks Urgle!...it might not be a perfect analogy but hopefully at least thought provoking.

LLT
09-18-2010, 09:52 AM
That graph is the slanted one, the War deficit was added to the sta after Obama came into office.

Actually ...no. Even with the war added to 2008 the present administration rose the deficit by 130% from the previous year.

In 2009...the war in Iraq cost about 136 billion in 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/terror/main4704018.shtml

The present administration raised the deficit to about 1.4 trillion dollars which includes the cost of the war. (It would still be 1 trillion 264 billion without the war)

The deficit for 2008 was 407 billion with a war cost of 190 billion...(which equals 597 billion).


So by using the rules that you have laid down for this debate....and adding the cost of the war to both administrations....the Dems outspent the previous administration by over 800 BILLION dollars in one year. That doesn't take into consideration that in 2010 this administration raised the deficit again by an ADDITIONAL 100 billion!!!

So back to the original post....what does it mean when an administration that has raised the deficit by 900 billion dollars in two years....claims a victory for "lowering" that deficit to only about 700 billion MORE than the previous administrations worse year?

The truth is: The 2011 budget includes a $1.267 trillion budget deficit. And according to the administration's own budget report..., the interest on the federal debt is expected to be nearly 6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years!!!!

GBMelBlount
09-18-2010, 05:20 PM
So by using the rules that you have laid down for this debate....and adding the cost of the war to both administrations....the Dems outspent the previous administration by over 800 billion dollars in one year.




Thanks for clarifying LLT.

What I find scary is that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half....

and now he's guaranteed the DOUBLING of the national debt after only 1 year in office.

smokin3000gt
09-18-2010, 05:32 PM
He's done the opposite of everything he said he would do except for health care. He was sure to ram that down our throats even though America screamed NOOOO!!

HometownGal
09-18-2010, 07:10 PM
He's done the opposite of everything he said he would do except for health care. He was sure to ram that down our throats even though America screamed NOOOO!!


http://conservativeamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/pinocchio.png