Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, March 06, 2010

President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall. The 10-year outlook released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama's budget request would produce deficits that would add about $8.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

cookfish

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"Who cares? We won! Start them presses up again!!"

--Barack th Bankrupter

I'm condidering inventing a new machine. A personalized printing machine you can carry wherever you go.It'll come pre-loaded with paper and ink enough for 100 bills of any denomination up to $1,000,000, with refills free at any government institution. It'll be called, you guessed it, the Palm Printer. With the ability to print on-the-go, you'll never have to worry about being able to cover the tab at your local watering hole, or favorite restaurant.You'll never have to feel like you've overpaid for something when you tell the waitress, or your local crackwhore, "Keep the change".

I'll bet his deficit, this year alone, is over $2 trillion dollars. It was up almost 19% over last year. At that rate, his spending will double in four years. There is NO chance will his spending slow down.

This, I believe, is the reason why Obama is so desperate to get his health bill passed. Taxes would increase right away; benefits would start three years from now, after the next presidential election.

The only health Obama cares about, his his political health.

Seems like none of his numbers add up to what he claims. The deficit was projected at 1.65 T but it's not beyond the realm of possibility of what you say, Ray, since they raised the debt ceiling by nearly 2 trillion.

Interesting.

1980 - $909 billion
1990 - $3.2 trillion
2000 - $5.6 trillion
2010 - $15 trillion(e)
2020 - $25 trillion(?)

Something is not working. The fact is, the national debt has been doubling and tripling since friggin' 1980. All presidents and both parties have accomplished this.

If it wasn't for Bush and the war in Iraq it would only be $23.2 trillion though.

If it wasn't for Bush and the war in Iraq it would only be $23.2 trillion though.
#6 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY

Try to understand that the Beltway is running a massive Ponzi Scheme that is dependent on the expansion of debt. War, Republican, Democrat, it makes no difference. If they don't create new debt fast enough to pay off old debt and the accumulating interest, the monetary system collapses quicker than you can say Berrnie Madoff. It's that precarious!

They have to have enough money to buy votes to get re-elected.

They have to have enough money to buy votes to get re-elected.

Voters deserve their share of blame for voting on the basis of promises-of-something-for- nothing. No matter how much the political class lies, they insist on being fooled over and over again.

It takes a majority of stupid voters to make a stupid politician.

Hope and change and bankruptsy

AMATEUR HOUR

and bankruptsy
AMATEUR HOUR

#10 | POSTED BY EM385GUY AT 2010-03-06 11:14 AM

No shit.

dont you miss the good old days when shit like this

AND THE CBO annoucement that OBAMAS deficit will be over a trillion dollars OVER HIS ESTIMATE>.

dont you want to return to the good old days of bush when the left here actually GAVE A FLYING FUCK About things like this?????

NOT TO WORRY - PAYGO has been restored, well at least until the first bill that is was needed for. But none the less, Obama is leading the way......

OBAMA: What also has made these large deficits possible was the end of a common-sense rule called pay-as-you-go. It's pretty simple. It says to Congress, you have to pay as you go. You can't spend a dollar unless you cut a dollar elsewhere. This is how a responsible family or business manages a budget. This is how a responsible government manages a budget as well.

Now, in a perfect world Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today or our children tomorrow. But this isn't a perfect world. This is Washington. That's why this rule is necessary, and that's why I'm pleased that Congress fulfilled my request to restore it. Last night I signed the pay-as-you-go rule into law. Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends just like everybody else.

PAYGO- Walking The Fiscal Responsibility Walk
www.youtube.com

"Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall."
=================

Anyone against this?

YES...if its the one that allows a family of to pay for macdonalds once a month or whatever that was....AND it did NOTHING on jobs

SAME PROBLEM with trillions spent on stimulus and JOBS KEEP disappearing..

but also remember a fact that lower taxes brings in more money, not less..

prime example of this whole thing..the track just raised a racing form from 5 to 6 during week and from 5 to 7 on weekend..sounds like they will make a lot more right??>

wrong...I buy AT LEAST 4 or 5 a week and sometimes 7 a week at 5...but now I am buying 0 as in NONE..
that wont break them but its the concept...instead of getting 25 or so from me a week they will now get $0.00.....same thing in govt taxes

AND how does harry ried answer all of this

www.thefoxnation.com

YES...if its the one that allows a family of to pay for macdonalds once a month or whatever that was..
#15 | Posted by afkabl2
================

Make Bush tax cuts permanent for : Lower and middle income households...

Permanently protect the middle class from the "wealth" tax:
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). That would protect tens of millions of middle-income families from having to pay the tax.

Extend the Make Work Pay credit:a one-year extension of the stimulus-created tax credit that adds a few dollars to workers' paychecks every pay period.

Permanently expand a low-income tax credit: Earned Income Tax Credit for very low-income families with three or more children. The expansion meant such families could claim a credit equal to 45% of their qualifying earnings, up from 40%, so that they could get a maximum credit of $5,657.

Expand child-care tax credit: Under the president's budget, families making less than $85,000 would be able to claim nearly double the child and dependent care tax credit for which they currently qualify

Permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit:
The credit is worth up to $2,500 for higher education expenses, up from $1,800 previously.
=====
anyway you look at it that's alot of hamburgers.

YES...if its the one that allows a family of to ....AND it did NOTHING on jobs
#15 | Posted by afkabl2
===============
Eliminate capital gains tax on small business stock:

...Business would be able to receive a $5,000 tax credit for every new hire 2010 The total tax credits would be limited to $500,000 per company to ensure most aid will go to small businesses.

Small businesses that increase wages or extend hours for current employees would be reimbursed for the Social Security payroll taxes they pay on wage increases.

...to speed this money to businesses, companies would be able to claim theses credits on a quarterly bases.
==========

Should help the jobs problem

What is Pay Go? A gas tax?

Another $9.7 Trillion in Debt by 2020

WTF!

I't pretty clear that these ass-clowns are purposely trying to do this.

Barry's vision is get us so far in debt, they then have to start nationalizing many more industries and voila...Marxism... Saul Alinsky's dream has been fulfilled!

C'mon November!

Which is somewhere between 30-100% less than the bailout distribution, yet will take ten times longer to incur.

And, all you will hear from the 'Oboner Boneheads' is "just raise taxes" to balance the debt.. they do not understand the idea of cutting spending and cutting taxes to pump the economy... as one of our most prominent Oboner posters loves to say: "So??? more taxes, I just go out and make more money".. this 'abortion of reason' is leading us down a very disatrous path of destruction; just what he and the Jeremiah's of his posse want to do..!!! we are dealing with an 'aberration in office' who would like nothing more to take over in a dictatorship.. Oboner cares nothing about economic health..or really the health care plan or any citizen of this country except as a tool of power and control..!! of course, all we will hear from the people with their head up his ass is that this is none of his problem.. this guy is clueless..!!!

this guy is clueless..!!!

Actually, I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
He's following the gameplan of Saul Alinsky to a tee and it's falling into place very nicely.

Barry's goal is to finish off this once great capitalist county and mould it into the left's vision of a Marxist "One World Gov't Utopia."

Our children are and have been brainwashed by the public schools system for more than a generation so they have look to the Gubment for their entitlements:

Healthcare, education, retirement, housing and the beat goes on.

Take a look at present day Greece....scary shit!

Agreed DOC... he is 'clueless' as how to really lead to a solution of restoration.. which fits perfectly to his plan of dissolution of this great society..!!!

One good thing, the voters are starting to wise up and pay attention.

With "Algore's" invention of the internet, blogs, Fox News and talk radio, the masses can find outlets that don't continually tow the line for the left.

After hearing of the victory in MA, I now have "Hope for Change" in Nov...:)

I may coin that phrase and start printing tee shirts!

Capitalism, isn't it great!

"... which fits perfectly to his plan of dissolution of this great society..!!!"

That was Osama bin Laden's objective with 9/11 and he's probably as shocked as anyone as to how well it worked.

Quite the return for a $500K investment.

Obamanation.....Hype and Chains.

He's following the gameplan of Saul Alinsky to a tee and it's falling into place very nicely
Posted by Dicksmoocher

It was Saul Alinsky's plan for Gannon's cum-dumpster to set the nation back 50 years by cratering the economy while simultaneously leaving a couple wars festering for his successor? Lost wars and lousy economies, the telltale residue of the American rightwing shitstain.

reinheitsgebot

Nice comeback Potsie!

You're a mean, small minded man who is the perfect example of what our public school system has done to this county. Your belief that Gubment good, Big Biness Evil....

Now go back to the boob-tube and wait for your welfare check to hit the mail...it's almost Monday Dilweed.

If it wasn't for Bush and the war in Iraq it would only be $23.2 trillion though.
#6 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY

If it hadn't been for Bush there would have been surpluses for the last nine years and the national debt would be gone. You do remember Clinton, don't you? But, no, you had to go all Reaganomics again. You know, the guy who proved, according to the right that "deficits don't matter"?

It's criminally insane. Only fools think it can be done. It is impossible to get out of a debt crises by creating more debt. Anybody who buys Treasury bonds, on the premise they are a safe haven, is just asking to get screwed.

DEBT FOR DUMMIES from the US Treasury website.

"What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
www.treas.gov

In other words, the Federal Reserve issues new IOU-nothings (debt) to pay off Treasury old IOU-nothings (debt). THEIR debt must be redeemed by a third party for a good or a service.

This is the second greatest fraud in human history.

Another point to the meaning of: "Federal Reserve notes are 'backed' by all the goods and services in the economy."

The federal government is claiming ownership of all goods and services in the economy. You own nothing.

Notice how Corky and Danni rarely show up on threads about future deficits?

Quick danni tell us is it time for another shovel ready stimulus?

Oh and when Jim Bunning dared to mention paygo, corky danni and the dr left were ALL OVER HIM.

Notice how Corky and Danni rarely show up on threads about future deficits?

Notice how quickly Corky shows up on threads with the word 'penis' in the title?

"Notice how Corky and Danni rarely show up on threads about future deficits?"

"Obama is convening a special commission to bring deficits down to 3 percent of the economy, but the CBO report shows that Obama could accomplish that goal simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and paying for changes to the alternative minimum tax."

Notice how the CBO says that Danni is right about increasing taxes. Notice how they say that Danni has been right all along predicting that allowing those tax cuts to expire will return us to sane fiscal policies (in fact they are even more optimistic than I who believe we will need higher tax rates than just pre-Dubya).
Far from avoiding topics like this I am glad that the CBO is talking about tax cuts instead of the idiotic "cut spending" mantra which is really just code for "make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Considering the Republicans obstructionism in Congress really the only thing Obama and the Dems can do is nothing, just let them tax cuts expire. Yes, I know my taxes will increase but then I care about my kids and grandkids more than about saving a few dollars now. Why don't Republcians care about theirs?

I am glad that the CBO is talking about tax cuts instead of the idiotic "cut spending" mantra which is really just code for "make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

#37 | Posted by danni

ummm, no secret de-coder ring needed here by our resident economist - -

"cut spending" means . . . CUT SPENDING

"Oh and when Jim Bunning dared to mention paygo, corky danni and the dr left were ALL OVER HIM."

I used to be confused by the contradictions and seemingly nonsensical stuff posted by them until I happened upon the code key by accident. Since then, every post is easily understood when you decipher their code. It's really quite simple and applies to very post whether it is long or short:

Democrats....GOOD!
Republicans...BAD!

Notice how the CBO says that Danni is right about increasing taxes.

The CBO doesn't give a shit how much the feds screw the public. It's the debt stupid! See #31, 32 & 33.

Danni - Get off that bullshit and take a gook look at these Federal Reserve statistics.

Debt spending is exploding.
research.stlouisfed.org

Federal receipts peaked in 1999. They've been in free fall ever since.
research.stlouisfed.org

Republics are responsible.
Democrats are responsible.
Voters are responsible.

There is no fucking way can this debt be paid off.

"There is no fucking way can this debt be paid off."

Well, at least I know which side of the "walk away from your mortgage" debate you are on.

Well, at least I know which side of the "walk away from your mortgage" debate you are on.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Remember that $12 trillion debt that Congress just expanded by another $2 trillion?
Look at the RATE the debt is expanding.
research.stlouisfed.org

At least I know which side of taxes you are on. Yeah. Save the banks. Screw the taxpayers.

"WTF does that have to do with anything?"

You always seem so determined that we should just accept our fate of national bankruptcy and invest our money in gold.

"At least I know which side of taxes you are on. Yeah. Save the banks. Screw the taxpayers."

Yeah, I want high tax rates on the levels of income that the Wall St. bankers give to themselves. The higher the better above a number yet to be determined although many of the bonuses I've heard talked about would certainly qualify.

Danni has mentioned before that she does not care how high taxes go..I believe her comment was: "well, I just go out and make more money".. it is this type ignorance against 'cost cutting' that continues to be a part of the downfall of this economy... if every business took this approach of 'sure, raise my taxes, I will just sell more' attitude, you can see how far that would go.. we are spending out of any reasonable doctrine and, unfortunately, a lot of this 'stimulus spending' is not even getting into OUR economy.. this government, on all sides, is out of control and we have NO leadership that really understands economics..!!! when you are raised, and even after education, jump into a career where everything is based on handouts, we should not expect much more.. and, unfortunately, the supporters of this administration, for the most part, have never had anything but handouts..!!!

Yeah, I want high tax rates on the levels of income that the Wall St. bankers give to themselves. The higher the better above a number yet to be determined although many of the bonuses I've heard talked about would certainly qualify.

You're just kicking chairs around on the deck of the Titanic. I'm trying to explain how the whole fucking monetary system is a federally designed Ponzi fraud showing early signs of collapse, and you complain about taxes. From Obama'a view, those bonuses are reward for keeping economy from collapsing (for now).

Federal deficits are exploding.
research.stlouisfed.org

I'm convinced you are financially illiterate. These charts have no meaning to you.

You always seem so determined that we should just accept our fate of national bankruptcy and invest our money in gold.
#45 | Posted by dann

National bankruptcy can't be avoided!!! I pay attention to the numbers. You ignore them.

Gold is the safest place to park your money in uncertain times like these.

Ray on the plus side less than 1/3 of the debt is held by foreign interest so when we declare bankrupcy there probably won't be an external war. Civil war is a whole different thing when John Q Public looses their 8 billion dollar portfolio of Treasury Bonds.

Ugh sorry make that 8 trillion for John Q Public to loose not 8 billion. 8 billion is more like the Federal Reserves exposure.

Here's the mindset of the left...

Yeah, I want high tax rates on the levels of income that the Wall St. bankers give to themselves. The higher the better above a number yet to be determined although many of the bonuses I've heard talked about would certainly qualify.

#46 | Posted by danni

Tax someone else, not me. Nor do I want you to reduce MY ENTITLEMENTS.

When it comes to paying more taxes THEMSELVES, they run for cover. Just answer us this danni, why does Oprah Winfrey 'retire' to california...but makes sure she's there LESS THEN 180 DAYS...because she can't afford their taxes???????

Ray on the plus side less than 1/3 of the debt is held by foreign interest so when we declare bankrupcy there probably won't be an external war. Civil war is a whole different thing when John Q Public looses their 8 billion dollar portfolio of Treasury Bonds.

#50 | Posted by TaoWarrior

I have been saying this for years. Didn't the USSR go belly up?

Ray on the plus side less than 1/3 of the debt is held by foreign interest so when we declare bankrupcy there probably won't be an external war. Civil war is a whole different thing when John Q Public looses their 8 billion dollar portfolio of Treasury Bonds.

Yes. A declaration of bankruptcy to even one creditor (China?) would cause a run on the dollar and lead to a systemic monetary collapse. It would forestall a military war. The feds won't go there. They have three options: let the debt collapse, inflate or devalue the dollar. I think we'll see a combination of all three.

See video of Argentina's monetary collapse in 2001.
video.google.com

China is beginning to ease itself out of its dollar peg.
www.telegraph.co.uk

Also, creditor nations are working to develop a new international currency based on some combination of currencies and gold.

I'll bet his deficit, this year alone, is over $2 trillion dollars. It was up almost 19% over last year. At that rate, his spending will double in four years. There is NO chance will his spending slow down.

This, I believe, is the reason why Obama is so desperate to get his health bill passed. Taxes would increase right away; benefits would start three years from now, after the next presidential election.

The only health Obama cares about, his his political health.

#3 | Posted by Ray

Bingo---you're exactly right, Ray, this bill is not about healthcare it's about taxation through the backdoor---but once again Washington uses the old "bait and switch" technigue to accomplish what they want---it also is an expansion of the current system through subsidies.

"At least I know which side of taxes you are on. Yeah. Save the banks. Screw the taxpayers."

Yeah, I want high tax rates on the levels of income that the Wall St. bankers give to themselves. The higher the better above a number yet to be determined although many of the bonuses I've heard talked about would certainly qualify.

#46 | Posted by danni

What you're going to get is higher taxes and less entitlements---just watch what's going on in Greece---anybody for a little austerity---the days of entitlements may be coming to an end.

Fuck it.

The quicker we get this over with the better.

Implode the fucking country already - lets all think of ways to get ours from the Government!

Grants, earmarks, no-bid contracts - any ya'll got any contacts back in DC?

Lets all join in! Then, get the fuck out and watch it all collapse from a tropical sandy beach somewhere nobodies every heard of.

reinheitsgebot
Nice comeback Potsie!
You're a mean, small minded man who is the perfect example of what our public school system has done to this county. Your belief that Gubment good, Big Biness Evil....
Now go back to the boob-tube and wait for your welfare check to hit the mail...it's almost Monday Dilweed.

#29 | POSTED BY DOCSMOOTH

I am a farmer and small business owner and think assholes like you are worthless ticks on society.

You scumbags would pan any idea out of the left regardless of merit.

There is no difference between obama or bush. The whole reason why bush started 2 wars, expanded medicare coverage and cut taxes is to bankrupt the system. He wants to drown government.

The Iraq war is running 1-2 trillion a year. that is deficit spending.

And no I don't receive ANY government subsidies.

You certainly hit it on one point LEGIO...
both Bush and Oboner are strictly 'bobbleheads'..!!
the primary problem with the 'government society' is the total void of business practices... spending wildly with no controls..!!!
Oboner was raised and worked with a 'handout' mentality, which is a lot of the reason we are continuing to see his 'redistribution' ideas..
I applaud that you are still able to maintain farming with no subsidies... this is an admirable position that should teach a lot of lessons, but one that Oboner will go to every length to destroy!!!

It's only money. We'll never run out of money because computers can calculate infinately.

Welcome to McDonalds may I take your order?

I'll have a Big Mac meal with a diet Coke.

That's a Big Mac meal and a diet Coke. Is that right?

Yeah.

That'll be 2 billion four hundred sixty seven million, three hundred eighty four thousand, nine hundred eighty six dollars and 14 cents.

Would you like to donate 12 million dollars to the Ronald McDonald house today?

No thanks.

Alright Credit of Debit?

Please pull around to the only window.

See how easy that is.

Has DANNI already left?? I want to show her something... She keeps stating that the Bush Tax cost us money when in fact From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

The more money people have the more they spend... Pretty simple really. They got the money by taxing everything from piss to shit... Why can't she get that one point... She argues it over and over again....

The federal government made 785 Billion dollars more than they would have if the tax cuts had not been imposed....

You can't change the figures... They are what they are...

#61

Several concepts wrong there.

First, you're only counting from 2004 to 2007. Bush's tax cuts began in 2001.

Next, you're using nominal dollars instead of real dollars; real dollars are are adjusted for inflation, as you're supposed to do when comparing two disparate years.

Adjusted for inflation, the highest revenues were the last year of the Clinton tax codes. Anyone looking at Bush's tax cuts and claiming they increased revenue is using methods which would flunk an Econ 101 midterm.

Dan, Dan, Dan, you and those pesky facts!

They get me in trouble all the time, don't they?

"Anyone looking at Bush's tax cuts and claiming they increased revenue is using methods which would flunk an Econ 101 midterm."

Not only that but also the economy was seemingly booming, we had low unemployment and tax revenues always rise during such times however in reality it was all borrowed money with home equity to secure it until that equity evaporated. Sudden millions of jobs were lost, bankruptcies exploded and tax revenue fell like a rock.

And Ray and others so sure that we are going to face a financial collapse and that no tax increases could possibly help then why the hell are the wealthy afraid of those tax cuts expiring??? Are they all so economically illiterate that they don't know about the same things RAy does??? Or is there not another side to the economic story which isn't so dramatic, isn't so terrible but that does need attention, does need increased revenue from higher taxes. I think I'll bet on the latter.

Next, you're using nominal dollars instead of real dollars

Okay.... Nominal dollars?

Okay...

Total Federal State and Local Government revenue for the following years... That's everything taken in and counted in REAL Hard Currency.

1990 1.927 Trillion
1991 1.981 Trillion Increased 54 Billion
1992 2.025 Trillion Increased 44 Billion
1993 2.150 Trillion Increased 125 Billion
1994 2.301 Trillion Increased 151 Billion
1995 2.464 Trillion Increased 163 Billion
1996 2.615 Trillion Increased 169 Billion
1997 2.804 Trillion Increased 189 Billion
1998 3.003 Trillion Increased 199 Billion
1999 3.168 Trillion Increased 165 Billion
2000 3.457 Trillion Increased 307 Billion
2001 3.756 Trillion Increased 299 Billion
2002 3.388 Trillion Decreased 368 Billion
2003 3.671 Trillion Increased 283 Billion
2004 3.594 Trillion Decreased 77 Billion
2005 4.016 Trillion Increased 422 Billion
2006 4.438 Trillion Increased 422 Billion
2007 4.733 Trillion Increased 295 Billion
2008 4.816 Trillion Increased 83 Billion
2009 4.441 Trillion Decreased 375 Billion

Real dollar amounts from the federal government...

General increase of the total money taken in between 2001 and 2008 is about 1 Trillion 230 Billion Dollars.

General Increase of the total money taken in between 1993 and 2000 is about 1 trillion 468 Billion.

So Bush was able to increase the total intake of the federal government by cutting taxes.

The estimated total intake of the fed state and local governments for 2014 is 6.3871 Trillion Dollars....

THMANISCOMING

You completely ignored Danforth's point about inflation adjusted dollars.

Have a look at 2009 already down 375 Billion... Lets raise the taxes on the rich some more... See what that will get us....

You completely ignored Danforth's point about inflation adjusted dollars.

No I didn't... Those numbers are from the DNC....

Maybe you should complain to them....

Here's some simple math:

Clinton's balanced $1.9 Trillion budget of 2001 is equal to $2.3 Trillion in 2009 dollars.

Bush's 2010 budget was $3.83 Trillion

Subtract the 'deficit' (shortfall) of $1.51 Trillion

That means the 'revenues' for FY 2009 were:

$3.83 - 1.51 =
$2.32 Trillion (Tax Revenues 2009 dollars)

Now, if you convert the $2.32 Trillion in revenues into 2001 dollars you get:

$1.9 Trillion (2001 dollars)

Therefore, revenues did NOT increase one penny due to Bush's tax cuts.

Inflation adjusted dollars... Sounds like a lot of sixth sigma bullshit to me....

Inflation adjusted to what today's value? If you use that theory... you have to use it for everyone... So what you're saying is that the good Dr. Dean put real numbers in for the years between 1990 and 2000 and fake ones between 2001 and 2008.... Okay... I got it now....

Yea.... Inflation Yea.....

I meant to say Bush's FY 2009 budget.

Anyway, revenues didn't increase one penny when you adjust actual revenues (budget - deficit) and adjust that to 2001 dollars. Both $1.9 Trillion.

The major difference being Clinton didn't run a deficit in 2001, and Bush/GOP Congress left us with a legacy of deficits as far as the eye can see.

I used the Treasury Dept. federal budget numbers and adjusted actual revenues for 2009 into 2001 dollars.

No difference in revenues. Period. HUGE difference in deficits. Period.

Lets raise the taxes on the rich some more... See what that will get us....

Raise 'em back to 2001 levels and we'll have lower deficits. Easy math.

When the U.S. had higher taxes on the top 5% they invested money into business for tax purposes. Now, they just hoard it because they can.

Bush's 2010 budget was $3.83 Trillion Oh I got it now... The Bush 2010 Budget.... Yea...

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSMITTAL LETTER: BUDGET FY 2010

I have the honor to transmit to you the Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2010.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 7, 2009.

"Or is there not another side to the economic story which isn't so dramatic, isn't so terrible but that does need attention, does need increased revenue from higher taxes. I think I'll bet on the latter."
Cost cutting should be the priority above raising taxes... we have added so much new spending with increase in government jobs and average salaries with them... raising taxes only continues to increase the economic problems.. why should there be increased government spending, when there are no returns on it??? when it is not serving our best interests??? those who propose continued spending without cost controls are the very ones FEEDING off the government.. of course, they do not want spending cut, they have been brainwashed to believe that the government OWES them something.. and, it becomes more disturbing each day just how many support the 'distribution of wealth'...eg.. "gimme, but do not expect me to pay my fair share"...!!!

"No I didn't... "

Yes...you did.

Admit it: you'd couldn't pass a freshman Econ class.

We still spend more just on nuclear weapons than health care. Where were all you deficit hawks been hiding for the last decade? Why do you want to waste so much money killing innocent people you don't even know?

"Inflation adjusted dollars... Sounds like a lot of sixth sigma bullshit to me.... "

Or common sense, if you had even the slightest modicum of education.

Here's an illustration:

Back in 1950, the minimum wage was $1 an hour.

If it were $1.01 today, would that be --- adjusted for inflation --- more, or less?

" Oh I got it now... The Bush 2010 Budget.... Yea... "

You don't know that Presidents leave budget forecasts, yet you're commenting on a thread that talks about Obama's budget forecasts to 2020???

The stupid is strong with this one.

If it were $1.01 today, would that be --- adjusted for inflation --- more, or less?

THEMANISCOMIN

" Oh I got it now... The Bush 2010 Budget.... Yea... "

I corrected that to 2009 upthread. Yes, FY 2009 was Bush's budget.

FTFY MANCOMING

I meant to say Bush's FY 2009 budget.

Anyway, revenues didn't increase one penny when you adjust actual revenues (budget - deficit) and adjust that to 2001 dollars. Both $1.9 Trillion.

The major difference being Clinton didn't run a deficit in 2001, and Bush/GOP Congress left us with a legacy of deficits as far as the eye can see.

#72 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-07 06:19 PM

Subtract the 'deficit' (shortfall) of $1.51 Trillion

I don't care what the debt was it doesn't change the fact that the government took in X amount of dollars for any given years...

You take 2001 dollars and apply the dollars value in 2009 for what? To fuck the numbers up....

Using that method on the clinton years does what? make his better? Fuckin retarded.

I made $121,000 in 2002... I had about 1,000 in credit card debt so what your selling is that I only was paid 119,900? No I was PAID 121 Thousand...

I don't really care what the government ows out... If they took in X you cant say they didn't because they owe money out...

They took the money in.... It has nothing to do with what they owe out.

Applying today's rates to yesterdays dollars I guess will make you feel better about your guy.... But it doesn't do a fucking think to change the reality of the situation.

Is the 9 Trillion projected Obama short fall calculated in that way? Are you adding the predicted inflation rate to that figure? Or can we all say that the dollar won't be worth a turd in a toilet in 2014 so the 9 trillion figure climbs to over twenty????

THEMANISCOMING

It's really simple math:

The 'budget' MINUS the 'deficit' = REVENUES

budget forecasts

Forecast is meaningless.... It is not used. The president sets the budget... I could care less what the presidents forecast is... What did he sign as a budget? Whats the REAL Budget... All of Bush's forecasts went out the window the day BO took office.

The only thing Obama used from the Bush budget is the 1.3 trillion of debt. He has to use that because it is real. By the mans own forecasts he has doubled the frigging thing in a year and a half...

The 'budget' MINUS the 'deficit' = REVENUES

Well talk to Howard Dean on that one because the numbers I used are the Dollar Amounts the Democratic National Convention states the Government took in for the years I listed...

I'm not moving the goalposts in this discussion about your purported RISE in revenues due to tax cuts.

It didn't happen. You were wrong. It's OK.

BTW, we didn't have deficits when Clinton left office. In fact, we had 'surpluses'. We could have paid off the national debt last year if Bush and the GOP Congress had kept to Clinton's plan, and we wouldn't be running deficits if multitrillion dollar wars, multitrillion dollar tax cuts, and multi trillion follar unfunded liabilites hadn't been enacted by the GOP.

If I own a store and I owe 30,000 for product, a 100 people come into the store and buy stuff... They spent a total of 1,200 dollars. By your math we can't say that... Only 72 people cam in today and they didn't buy nothing!

What do you call that Convenient Math?

'm not moving the goalposts in this discussion about your purported RISE in revenues due to tax cuts.

It didn't happen. You were wrong. It's OK.

These are numbers posted by the DNC? How am I wrong?

BTW, we didn't have deficits when Clinton left office. In fact, we had 'surpluses'. We could have paid off the national debt last year if Bush and the GOP Congress had kept to Clinton's plan, and we wouldn't be running deficits if multitrillion dollar wars, multitrillion dollar tax cuts, and multi trillion follar unfunded liabilites hadn't been enacted by the GOP.

If the GOP is so evil? Why are the Democrats about to get their asses handed to them in the next election?

I mean I'm not a supporter of either party... They're all crooks in my opinion... But why are the people sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Pissed off at the Democrats.... Maybe it's the Math they're are using... LOL

"Forecast is meaningless...."

The stupid is really, really strong in this one.

"I made $121,000 in 2002..."

I think you're missing the decimal point.

"You take 2001 dollars and apply the dollars value in 2009 for what?"

To correctly compare different years.

Why don't you try answering my minimum wage question, just to see if you're tethered to reality?

MAN COMING

This thread is about "FEDERAL" deficits.

States have to balance their budgets one way or another year to year.

Stay on topic: Federal Budgets.

"I made $121,000 in 2002..."

I think you're missing the decimal point.

Yea you are correct... I made $121,291.47 in 2002... Thanks for reminding me.... But wait a minute... I owed abut 1,100 on credit card debt and then there is the inflation... Lets see... Ummm ummm cary the 3... yada yada yada... OK I made #20,000 in 2002.... I bet you feel soooooooo much better now...

God I love working at Merrill Lynch.....

"I bet you feel soooooooo much better now..."

If you want to parade your stupidity, who am I to stop you? You've already shown you don't know what an 18-year old must before he goes home for fall break.

"God I love working at Merrill Lynch....."

And you don't know the difference between real dollars and nominal dollars?

No wonder guys like you drove us into the crapper.

This just in from Danforth....

If you had a thousand dollars in 2001, You didn't really have a thousand dollars because due to inflation by today's standards... You only had 619 dollars....

Please write a letter to the internal revenue demanding back all of the money you paid in taxes...

They charged you too much on that thousand dollars because it really was only 619 dollars by today's rates...

Thank You....

I think my husband is correct here...

I would call that fucking politically motivated, dripping dick sucking leftist whimpola cum burping whore math....

Signed MRS Richards.... LOL

Sorry boys but I need my husband to help me with something for a while... He can come back later... I love when you piss him off on this site because he just fucks the living shit out of me.... LOL

Bye Bye..... Fuzzy Math enthusiasts.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cutsand the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

BTW, we didn't have deficits when Clinton left office. In fact, we had 'surpluses'. We could have paid off the national debt last year if Bush and the GOP Congress had kept to Clinton's plan, and we wouldn't be running deficits if multitrillion dollar wars, multitrillion dollar tax cuts, and multi trillion follar unfunded liabilites hadn't been enacted by the GOP.

#89 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Another poor individual brainwashed and incapable of doing his own research---we had deficits every year of Clinton's presidency---I'm getting tired educating people about the myth that Clinton didn't create deficits when in fact he did. Fortunately I no longer see Danni spouting (along with others) that myth---since they've found out it was BS.

Hey Mstsop...

Did you know that if you had a thousand dollars in 2001 you didn't really have a thousand dollars? According to mister Danforth you had much less... Or is it that if you had a thousand dollars in 2006 you didn't really have a thousand dollars after applying inflation which would make your 2006 thousand dollars worth less than your 2001 thousand dollars. In either case you didn't really have a thousand dollars... But you paid tax on a thousand... :-(

Using the formulas described by Mr. Danforth I would call for an immediate tax cut of 50 Percent! We are paying taxes on money that doesn't exist according to them.

Danforth is just too intelligent for my miniscule cerebral functions---now let me think--you mean that my thousand dollars really isn't a thousand dollars---I think what Danforth is trying to say is that the purchasing power of a thousand dollars in 2006 was less then a thousand dollars in 2001---however, it still is a thousand dollars.

THEMANISCOMING was trying to compare federal revenues from 2001 to 2009's. In real dollars, the 2 Bush tax cuts didn't help revenues go up one penny as he was purporting.

Did you know that if you had a thousand dollars in 2001 you didn't really have a thousand dollars?

You should be embarrassed by even trying to pass that statement off as a characterization of what Danforth said. What you've managed to do is show a complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

THEMANISCOMING was trying to compare federal revenues from 2001 to 2009's. In real dollars, the 2 Bush tax cuts didn't help revenues go up one penny as he was purporting.

#107 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I've come to this conversation late---I suppose your above statement was based on the affect of inflation?

re: I've come to this conversation late---I suppose your above statement was based on the affect of inflation?

#109 | Posted by matsop at 2010-03-07 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's generally understood by the phrase "real" or "adjusted" dollars, yes. Bought a hamburger for a dime lately? Bought a FUCKING CLUE FOR A QUARTER?

That's generally understood by the phrase "real" or "adjusted" dollars, yes. Bought a hamburger for a dime lately? Bought a FUCKING CLUE FOR A QUARTER?

#110 | Posted by BetelG

A bad hair day?

Matsop-
Mostly just a 'tired of idiots' day that you seem to have aggravated.

Matsop-
Mostly just a 'tired of idiots' day that you seem to have aggravated.

#112 | Posted by BetelG

Sorry about that---you sound like my bro who says he deals with idiots all day.

You really took the prize, dude. If you don't understand what "real" or "adjusted" dollars are then you are ignorant. If you DO understand what they are, then you are a lying shitbag of intentional disinformation and partisan propaganda.

Dig?

You really took the prize, dude. If you don't understand what "real" or "adjusted" dollars are then you are ignorant. If you DO understand what they are, then you are a lying shitbag of intentional disinformation and partisan propaganda.

Dig?

#114 | Posted by BetelG

I've forgotten more then you'll ever learn in this area---

You really took the prize, dude. If you don't understand what "real" or "adjusted" dollars are then you are ignorant. If you DO understand what they are, then you are a lying shitbag of intentional disinformation and partisan propaganda.

Dig?

#114 | Posted by BetelG

I've forgotten more then you'll ever learn in this area---

#115 | Posted by matsop

Since I do all my own investing, I understand nominal, real, and adjusted interest rates; yield curves---steep, inverse, etc. So go back to your cave of basic knowledge.

I've forgotten more then you'll ever learn in this area---

#115 | Posted by matsop

Maybe you should work on your memory. I hear fish oil supplements and daily exercise can help.

"I think what Danforth is trying to say is that the purchasing power of a thousand dollars in 2006 was less then a thousand dollars in 2001---however, it still is a thousand dollars."

Well, yeah, the same way a dollar in 1950 is the same as a dollar today.

If you think there's no difference, you're a fool. There was a thread a few days ago about a woman who bought $180 of Abbott Stock in 1935. Are you going to claim you're financially savvy, and then pretend it was really just like $180 in today's dollars?

"This just in from Danforth....If you had a thousand dollars in 2001, You didn't really have a thousand dollars because due to inflation by today's standards... You only had 619 dollars.... "

This guy wins the Moron Of The Year Award.

It would take MORE than $1000 to have the same purchasing power in 2010, due to the effects of inflation.

Once again, an "F" on an Econ 101 test.

LOL.

Good night to all.

"Danforth is just too intelligent for my miniscule cerebral functions"

I skipped a grade and was offered to skip two others.

Sorry if the truth hurts so much.

It's about comparing apples to apples, not apples to old apples.

If you think there's no difference, you're a fool. There was a thread a few days ago about a woman who bought $180 of Abbott Stock in 1935. Are you going to claim you're financially savvy, and then pretend it was really just like $180 in today's dollars?

#118 | Posted by Danforth

You guys are playing a game of semantics---a thousand dollars was a thousand dollars in 1933, 1943, 1953, 1963, 1973, etc. What's changed is its' purchasing power---it's that simple---all because of those depreciating dollars.

I skipped a grade and was offered to skip two others.

Sorry if the truth hurts so much.

#121 | Posted by Danforth

Backwards or forwards?

"Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden."

I take it back.

This guy wins Moron Of The Decade.

If tax rates got slashed on the wealthiest --- which they did --- and the wealthy still pay a larger portion of the tax pie, that means they controlled much, MUCH more of the wealth after the cuts.

Mine was a horrible analogy, but anyone who understands the basics would adjust for inflation to compare tax revenues from today vs a bygone year.

"Backwards or forwards?"

You don't seem to know economic basics. Or the meaning of the word skip.

I'll let you guess, Einstein.

"What's changed is its' purchasing power---it's that simple---all because of those depreciating dollars."

No shit, Sherlock. And if you think inflation is semantics, you're a financial idiot.

I'll let you guess, Einstein.

#127 | Posted by Danforth

Very prescient.

-however, it still is a thousand dollars

Oh I get it now... It's a thousand dollars if I have it but it's not a thousand dollars if it was collected during the Bush Administration.... I see now... Thanks a lot.

"Oh I get it now..."

No...no, you don't. You've yet to show you have the financial savvy of a college freshman.

Are You Smarter Than A 13th Grader?

THEMANISCOMING was trying to compare federal revenues from 2001 to 2009's. In real dollars, the 2 Bush tax cuts didn't help revenues go up one penny as he was purporting.

Never happened... I simply posted the numbers that the DNC states are the revenues for the years 1990 through 2009.... #66 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-07 05:55 PM

According to the chart supplied by the DNC the federal government and all state and local governments saw significant increases.... You can argue that 2004 dollars aren't real because the inflation does this or that... Retard arguments of this nature are almost politically motivated here...

You guys are the ones arguing with Howard Deans numbers.....

We weren't discussing state budgets. You did.

Meaningless in discussing tax cuts. Most states have increased sales tax rates and other fees to meet their budgets over the years. There goes that theory - on a state wide level too.

BTW, Reagan slashed federal revenue sharing to states, so that seeming tax cut of his first year (raised every other year in his Presidency) had to be made up by states, who raised their rates to make up for shortfalls.

Look dude... The answer is pretty simple really..

In 1991 the government grossed 1.981 Trillion I don't really give two shits what you do with inflation.... They took in 1.98 trillion... in 2000 the government grossed 3.457 Trillion... You want to jerk the numbers off to make your side win I'll sit here and laugh at you all night.

Fact is I could probably buy and sell your ass. I make more day trading than I make on the books at Merrill Lynch as an IT consultant. Look at Bank Of America... I bought it at $3.00... I bought a damn lot of it too... I sold it at 16..... The two trades cost me 16 bucks on line.... No brokers no bull shit... Keep arguing the numbers with me... I love watching you blow smoke out of your ass.

Can't wait for the Commercial mortgage bank disaster to hit so I can make even more money while you mathematical geniuses tall jokes here on the DR.

"I don't really give two shits what you do with inflation...."

Like I said, a flunkee from a freshman Economics class.

Great, Thanks Obama, this is sure change we can believe in.! he is suce a progressive tird.

Chances are you don't even know what a "progressive" is, beyond what Glenn Beck tells you to think.

Chances are you don't even know what a "progressive" is, beyond what Glenn Beck tells you to think.

#137 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

A leftist is a leftist is a leftist no matter what name you pin on it to obfuscate its' deplorable nature---a pig is a pig no matter how much lipstick you smear on it.

A simpleton talking point repeater is a simpleton talking point repeater no matter how many simple talking points he repeats.

re: a pig is a pig no matter how much lipstick you smear on it.

#138 | Posted by matsop at 2010-03-08 07:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

How DARE YOU say that about Sarah!

Obama is a complete failure. I think that Sean Penn should wish the screaming anus cancer thingy on more than just his detractors.

A simpleton talking point repeater is a simpleton talking point repeater no matter how many simple talking points he repeats.

#139 | Posted by danni

Danni, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself---give yourself a break and some breathing space although your self-assessment is quite accurate.

Government Solutions

You guys are arguing with a guy who pretended to make a post by his supposed wife talking about how she loves when we piss him off on this site because it makes him 'fuck the shit out of her.'

THEMANISCOMING post #102

-I think what Danforth is trying to say is that the purchasing power of a thousand dollars in 2006 was less then a thousand dollars in 2001-

Well no shit.... He figured that out??? Pretty good there dan... A real sticky wicket that inflation... What tipped you off Dan.... Was it the $150,000 homes selling for $400,000 or was it something else.... What I don't get is how you could say that the government taking in 4.438 Trillion doesn't equal 4.438 trillion.... Those dollars may not have bought as much you are correct (and I'm sorry if I had a little too much fun with that last . My wife was doing half of the typing in my own defense...) But it's still 4.4 trillion bucks in my book...

You guys are arguing with a guy who pretended to make a post by his supposed wife Dude... That was my wife.... She butts in all the time... You think she's gonna let me sit and type all night? Ever since the day that RCADE attempted the IP Address blunder she has been quite willing to throw in her two cents.... You can't have two accounts from one IP address according to RCADE so she just uses mine....

She is somewhat foul mouthed at times LOL... Not home now though... Monday is her night out with her Mom and the rest of the girls. She used to be my Boss at work.... LOL Now she's the Boss around the house... I keep asking myself how that happened but... What the hey...

his supposed wife talking about how she loves when we piss him off on this site because it makes him 'fuck the shit out of her.'

She didn't put out last night... LOL The only thing put out last night was the garbage and it was my turn...

Glad you pointed that out because she owes me one now... I printed that out and I'm gonna tape it to her pillow...

What a life...

"Well no shit.... He figured that out???"

The point was...you didn't.

"What I don't get is how you could say that the government taking in 4.438 Trillion doesn't equal 4.438 trillion"

I never said that. All I did was debunk your bullshit that the Bush tax cuts 'increased revenue'. If it didn't even increase it enough to keep pace with inflation, that would be a relative decrease, wouldn't it, Einstein?

you could say

For the last time... I Posted the numbers from a DNC site....

Those are Howard Deans Numbers or whoever is steering that Blight Blue Cluster Fuck On Out Of Town!

Maybe they can find a place to park it Over By The Magic Bus!!!!

Thank You....

"For the last time... I Posted the numbers from a DNC site..."

Before that, you claimed Bush's tax cuts increased the revenue.

Again...those methods would get you flunked in an Econ 101 midterm.

you claimed Bush's tax cuts increased the revenue.

No I don't agree with you theoretically on the issue. We both agree about the if I had a thousand dollars thing... LOL

But With the inflation included they are still calling it dollars and issued those figures.

They are not my numbers so it really wasn't my call.

I do agree with you after thinking about it that with inflation considered the numbers are different. But you could do that with any year and period... If inflation was low you have good numbers. Only problem there is that inflation is like a tide isn't it? It comes and goes with little control in certain US and World Market conditions. What I mean is that I don't think a sitting president can turn inflation off like a switch. So if you're unlucky enough to catch an upward rate swing your really just screwed without fucking with the entire banking industry...

With that being said. I still feel that if they took $1000 from every tax payer on any given year, That is the dollar amount they took in that year. That is the Dollar amount that came out of the citizenry in total tax Dollars Collected for that given year.

I don't care what that dollar bought that year in regard to a loaf of bread or a house. It says on the tax return that at the end of the day they took the $1000... No?

Then we all tried our damnedest to get three thousand back....

When adjusted for inflation, 2001 and 2009 brought in exactly the same amount of tax 'revenues'. Tax cuts didn't increase revenues one iota.

"But you could do that with any year and period... If inflation was low you have good numbers."

Nonsense. Inflation is cumulative.

"With that being said. I still feel that if they took $1000 from every tax payer on any given year, That is the dollar amount they took in that year."

So are you actually saying $1000 in 1950 was the equivalent of what $1000 would be in 2010, just because it's the same number?!?

"I don't care what that dollar bought that year in regard to a loaf of bread or a house."

It doesn't matter if you care or not. Comparing two different years without factoring for inflation will get you an "F" on an Econ 101 exam.

See if you can answer the question in post #80.

DANFORTH

Let's be honest. TheManIsComing doesn't understand simple math or inflation adjusted dollars.

Even after three days ....

"TheManIsComing doesn't understand simple math or inflation adjusted dollars"

And he works for Merrill Lynch? No wonder the financial sector is in the crapper.

TIMBCI's never been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable