Spending
 

Very basic question - how would your representative respond?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/marc...ore-eight-time

Excerpt: "This problem is going to happen, like the former chairman of the Fed said, or the Moody's said, this is a problem we're going to have to face up,” he said. “It may be two years, you know, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. But if our bankers over there in Asia begin to believe that we're not going to be solid on our debt, that we're not going to be able to meet our obligations, just stop and think for a minute what happens if they just stop buying our debt."

By the way -- option "1" -- spending whatever they want without concern for what the "math" is, is exactly what ALL recent Congresses have done, and I'm talking about the last 100 years, give or take a couple.

I'm not just trying to jab the Democrats. But whatever the source of this madness, it's time for it to end.

Why don't you have some logical, realistic choices? Rather than bumper stickers?

:zz: No it's not. That's simply factually incorrect.

What could be more logical than spending less than you take in?

because it's a push poll.

Shusssssh! ;)

Not getting yourself into that position in the first place, by deliberately giving away income earnings when you know you owe alot of money ;)

"Damn! I owe $20,000 on my credit card! What should I do?
1) Cancel the luxury cable channels and stop eating out
2) Stop buying food and paying rent
3) Tell my boss I'm going from 40 hours a week to 30 hours a week

"Wow! I think Numbers 2 & 3 are the best answers!", said the Republican Party

Six months later ....

"Oh, crap! Now I owe $30,000 on the credit card bill due to interest! What should I do? Well, I'm only working 30 hours a week - so the best thing would probably be to start giving away 5 hours a week in earnings to my rich brother".

:zz: No it's not. That's simply factually incorrect.







both parties are great at that. no need to single out the right

Not getting yourself into that position is in practical effect not spending money that exceeds your earnings year after year.

Not spending it on supporting illegal aliens that shouldn't be here in the first place, for example.

Not making welfare a way of life. A couple months or some other finite duration and then that's it.

Not giving away foreign aid.

Not forgiving loans to other countries like Haiti.
Not doing nation building.
Not paying both to blow something up and then to rebuild.
Not staying in other countries like South Korea for 60 YEARS after the war is over.
Not shipping jobs around the world instead of here in the United States, which means the government cannot overly regulate or overly tax those businesses.

Your beloved liberals are the ones mostly responsible over the years for running up that credit card bill. Not entirely, but mostly, especially FDR's "New Deal" and that Lyndon Johnson and his "Great Society" bullshiat.

The things you mention, above, contribute next to nothing to our deficit. Illegals? Seriously? Piddling, tiny percentages within an annual budget.

Clinton left us with a surplus. What happened then, Joey? A reminder of what composes our deficit, today: unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D giveaway, unfunded tax cuts (giving away our income)

If you give away your income, you won't be able to pay your bills. The largest part of our deficit is George W. giving away our income. Then worrying about cutting spending, when the problem is that you've cut your income markedly, isn't going to get you solvent very quickly.

again stop with your made up chart. It's not a BOP graph. Obama's budget is larger than George W's ever was and we're supposedly now out of Iraq?

BTW Check out CBPP.org, the cartoonist of Riot's graph, and see who they really are.

The poster child for bi-polar disorder!

Baloney. You keep saying it's made up, yet it's a perfectly valid and accurate graph, using perfectly true and valid numbers, it's appeared in multiple publications, and nobody - least of all you - has ever disproven it's validity.

First of all it was created over a year ago and projects deficit numbers going foward into 2019 w/o even taking into consideration the mega budgets Obama has put through.

No mention of Obamacare as well so that graph you posted might as well be three times higher with socialized medicine towering over anything represented in the CBPP graph. And BTW Huffington and Salon do not make up 'numerous publications.'

Sorry, Dell. You can keep attacking the messenger, (which I find funny, as you can't attack the data), but the fact remains that the chart and the figures within it, originally published on the website with multiple verifiable references as to where the numbers came from, if you'd bother to check - clearly show the majority of our deficit is from the unfunded Bush Tax Cuts, and the unfunded wars.

What references, exactly, on the CBPP website that went into the chart do you think are not accurate?

Obama "mega budgets" - have you missed what happened this week? We just finished the current budget? What "mega budgets" do you think have been "put through"? (as we are far behind on budgets)

And you clearly have no idea the financial impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act upon the deficit. You might try looking that up. You'd be pleasantly surprised.

In fact, you can look at the very recent CBO estimates, of what would happen to the deficit if the Republicans repealed the PPACA.

Bush's budget in his last year, 2008 was 2.982 Trillion (800 Billion for the wars.)

Obama's first year budget 2009 was 3.517 trillion and 2010 3.37 trillion so that's roughly 800 billion MORE over 2 years w/o the Iraq war and now we're going to cut 35 billion? LMAO. Add those budgets to the graph and project to 2016.

A budget is not a deficit. A budget is what you spend every year. A deficit is what you owe, in total. They are not the same thing.

Nobody, except the Govt., makes a budget that includes a deficit!

:tro:

To quote Charlie Sheen: "WINNING" :tro:

Except people who have mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt.

And just remember the Republican way to deal with your debt: when that mortgage balloon payment comes due, be sure to deal with it by cutting your income by working less hours, and spend less on food to cover the cost of your "budget deficit". You can fix your budget deficit by spending cuts and income giveaways! Slash your way to prosperity.

"less is more" Riot!

Your use of "income giveaways" is bass ackwards. It's the citizens who earn income and the government that leeches, not the other way around.

Tax cuts are not income giveaways.

exactly

my total debt, mortgage, car, etc, doesn't add up to above a years salary for me and my husband. now, that's budgeting....ah, if only the govt could do the same. oh, and zero credit cards! i highly recommend it.

alexander hamilton knew how to make your debt work for you. no doubt he's turning in his grave.

No, it's not. It is precisely correct. In accordance with our Constitution, we all contribute financially to our common good, we budget for it, obtained from taxes. That is our - America's - income. And you agree to that by being an American citizen. You pay taxes. It's part of your responsibility as an American.

Giving our countries income away, then screaming "Alas, how did we get poor?! We must cut spending", is ignorant of the totality of what got us here. Our countries income has crashed since 2000, down more than 10%, when we as a country have grown in population - thus we should be rolling in money, with less taxes being paid by all.

We are not. Ask yourself why.

And don't attribute it only to Bush's unfunded wars and unfunded Medicare giveaway. It was his unfunded tax cuts, too. In fact, that is the majority of what makes up our deficit. You can't spend what you don't have - so having a budget planned over years, but then giving the money away, so you have less money to both meet your budget and continue paying off the deficit, was unbelievably stupid. Where was all the public screaming about our deficit in the last 12 years, as it spiraled up out of control into trillion-land? As more corporate loopholes were placed into being, so this past year the top corporations in this country paid no income tax (and some even got billions back in credits) And that put us exactly where we are now.

If you are living on $100 a week to make your expenses, you don't cut your income to $70 a week then start bitching about spending as the cause of your troubles.

Once again: Clinton left us with a budget surplus and a rapidly decreasing deficit. Let's see what has made our deficit massive:



And tell me again, how well income giveaways - Bush giving away our income in the form of tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals - helped prevent our getting to this disastrous point in our countries financial existence? How great Reaganomics, "trickle down", has worked in the past? It's a proven bunch of hooey that has not worked.

And yet, unbelievably R- Paul Ryan wants to lower taxes for the wealthy from 35% to 25% in this next budget. How DARE he. The CBO has scored the Republican Ryan budget as adding trillions - trillions - to our debt over 10 years.

http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/


an interesting article..have no idea if it's accurate or not.

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire cuts our deficit in half in 10 years.

That's why the left was so very angry at Obama when he reniged on his campaign promise, and continued the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years, as a giveaway to the Republicans to get START signed. That's why they were screaming to at least let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in the recession.

Two years ago, the Tea Party was yelling at town hall meetings, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Well, they voted for the very people - the Republican budget - the party that has now publicly announced they want to eliminate those Tea Party folks Medicare completely in 10 years, and put the elderly back into poverty, and back into no health care. (It is a constant amazement to me, how some people vote against their own desires and self-interest). Oh, yeah, and use that increase in our income from saving that Medicare money, to finance the newest tax cuts for the wealthy.

Oh, pay down the debt? Let's have another fake Washington orgasm over clipping a few billion out of 0.17% of our budget, and say we did well, and pat ourselves on the back and call it historic.

Once again Riot's graph is sorely outdated if not distorted and does not take into consideration the budgets since Bush left office.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-fy11-spending

:zz: Your article doesn't even mention the deficit. Your article is about budgets in a superficial way, and doesn't even mention deficit contributions.

And no, the graph is not distorted, and not really outdated with the exception of Libya (considering the PPACA is self-funded to a net zero-zero, and the only major legislative thing to pass) It is accurate for when it was made, and surely is 100% accurate to reflect the Bush year's contribution to the debt and Obama's first year.

You can keep dissing it, but I suggest that if you want to do that, you point out which actual figures should be adjusted or that you feel are inaccurate. The references for the graph are at the cbpp website.

Or, you can list the deficit additions actually made since 2009 (hard to do, as we just are finishing that budget) with the extrapolations out over 20 years, and add them on top of the figures in the graph. Give us some hard figures. Just dismissing the entire graph by throwing random attack stuff against the wall to see if something sticks is silly and unproductive.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...al-us-economy/

and if you want to continue to blame Bush for Obama's budgets give Reagan and Bush Sr. the credit for Clinton's surplus.

That would be ideal, unfortunately fewer than 10% of 'we' pay for 90% of collected taxes. So 'we' actually 'all' don't contribute financially to our common good do 'we'?

i also disagreed with lowering ss payments-for what?

if we talk presently we need to call them the Bush/Obama tax cuts if we want to be factually correct. The tax cuts are on both guys since the Savior Obama signed on to extend them.

You are going no where if you keep on thinking Obama has been better than Bush... same old same old, he even bombs countries like Bush. They are basically the same guy.

And if Riot keeps on highlighting points of her speech, I'm outta here. ugh.

To get to Riot's ideal "we" is easy enough: make one tax rate for everybody, regardless of income, with no deductions. A Flat Tax is as close to fair as you will ever get, since it would be proportional in all cases.

Yes, Dell, let's give all the Presidents, especially Reagan and Bush W., credit for putting us deep in debt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsro...-with-the-debt "How did our national debt get so big?"

Obama is indeed responsible for his own stimulus - we were in a recession, recall? Where stimulus is a good thing? - which is still less than the debt Bush W left us from his wars and unfunded tax cuts.

The point is: it is unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars that have skyrocketed our debt.

Which is why tax loopholes for corporations and individuals need to be eliminated, so the biggest corporations in the country don't pay zero tax. And things like the Bush Tax cuts need to be eliminated. Why are you against that, then?

Rather than following ridiculous plans like the Ryan proposal, which will decrease the tax rate for only the wealthy, and increase corporate tax breaks.

For corporations and individuals :tro: The lobbyists on Capitol Hill will never, ever allow that to occur, unfortunately.

So, the President is going to speak within a couple hours. He'll say the Bush tax cuts need to expire (2 years too late, but yes). The Republicans have already said they will not consider anything that raises taxes. That's beyond ignorantly stupid (but the GOP has never been good at finances or taxes)

If Obama suggests lowering benefits for Medicare and Medicaid, raising ages, etc. (don't forget he just eliminated some Medicare excess to help pay for the PPACA) he's screwed with the left of his party. They will attack him far more severely than any on the right.