The Senator-elect from Illinois has dubious math skills

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

They raised the budget by 500 billion in 09 (submitted by Bush $3.1 Trillion) v. $3.6 Trillion Obama '10. And not to be outdone raised it another 200 billion for 2011 ($3.8 Trillion)

SO AFTER RAISING THE BUDGET BY 700 BILLION YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR PASSING THE LARGEST BUDGET CUT ( 1 BILLION )? THOSE WHO BUY THIS ARE NOT DONKEYS BUT ASSES!

THAT'S NOT ONLY HYPOCRITICAL IT'S AN INSULT AND A CON-JOB

US Budget Info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

It's a nice thread hijack, but what do you think about Mark Kirk? What do you think about saying you only will renew unemployment if it's paid for, but you'll raise the deficit 700 billion to give tax cuts to the rich, unpaid for, "No matter what" ?

Doesn't that make Kirk sound very beholden to the special interests of the wealthiest 2% of Americans, while he's willing to literally let other of his fellow Americans - millions - starve at Christmas because they can't find work during the biggest recession since the great Depression?

America has NEVER done that to it's citizens before - turned it's back on our citizens while unemployment is so high. You're okay with that? Yes or no?

Now, to get to your thread hijack: Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to cut 700 billion from the budget deficit. You won't give credit for 1 billion, certainly you must appreciate and endorse cutting 700 billion. The GOP is blocking that. Are you for that, or against that? You want to cut 700 billion, or not?

If your only criteria and desire for a budget at the brink of serious world-wide depression and then a major recession is the black and white simplicity of lower numbers, please go take Governmental Finance 101 to see the disaster that would have lead to.

There are parts of the budget (Bush especially) that were not negotiable in the face of a major depression. And let's look again at what the budget contributed to the deficit, how it got there after the Clinton years, and where it's going, okay?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now, to get to your thread hijack: Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to cut 700 billion from the budget deficit. You won't give credit for 1 billion, certainly you must appreciate and endorse cutting 700 billion. The GOP is blocking that. Are you for that, or against that? You want to cut 700 billion, or not?]

Of course I would support a 700 billion cut but conveniently wording a 700 billion income tax raise as a cut doesn't make it so and some are smart enough to figure that out. The 700 billion-tax raise would then be spent on more cash for clunker like programs before it was received, GUARANTEED! The credit cards must be taken away and cut up immediately!

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Of course I would support a 700 billion cut but conveniently wording a 700 billion income tax raise as a cut doesn't make it so and some are smart enough to figure that out.

Not that smart. When you have a set income level coming in, then you decide you don't need that amount of income any more (lets say 700-billion), yet you do not cut your spending by 700 billion in order to live at your new lower income level - you get in trouble.

Bush gave tax cuts, he cut the country's income, but those cuts were completely unfunded. Oh yeah, and two unfunded wars. That put us in deep, deep debt. We are in trouble.

So yes - the income tax should go back to what it used to be, for the top 2% of wealthiest Americans, affecting only their income over $250K, because it will cut our America's budget deficit by 60%!

BTW - you do realize that both the Bush temporary tax cuts were set to expire at this time purposely, right? Figuring there would be a Democratic President?

The credit cards must be taken away and cut up immediately!

If only that was the rallying cry by the GOP during Bush's unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars, that greatly put us into this mess.

BTW, I am in favor of a flat rate income tax. I am not in favor of a national sales tax at a flat percentage, because right now that percentage would have to be between 21% and 26% to provide us equal income. I don't want to pay that on food, cars, etc.

[dellinger63]

[quote=Riot;728660]

So yes - the income tax should go back to what it used to be, for the top 2% of wealthiest Americans, affecting only their income over $250K, because it will cut our America's budget deficit by 60%!
.

If it's as simple as that, how about a bi-partisan agreement to raise taxes on those over 250K (as you say 700 billion 60% of the deficit) while the Dems cut 466 billion or better yet the 700 billion they have raised the by budget since Obama took over. That way according to your numbers the deficit would be gone if the Dems agreed to pick up the remaining 40% or 466 billion or if Dems agreed to cut the budget by only what they have raised it by we'd have a 234 billion dollar surplus that would be bound to paying down the national debt. In about 80 years at that pace we'd have paid off the National Debt currently nearing 14 Trillion or 3 Trillion in just interest. Maybe when Biden said we need to spend to prevent going bankrupt he meant we need to spend to get the bankruptcy over as we have a $14,000 billion debt, $3,000 billion just in interest and can only afford 234 billion a year as payment. Dems. need to explain to their supporters that the gravy train is over. Then bring on higher taxes and let’s right the ship.

Or wonder if a bankruptcy court would hear the case? I know a family in a similar situation say 140K in debt who could only afford $2,340 after living expenses in payments would be the easiest BK case ever filed! Guess they’d have to rent out or sell a national forest and the many buildings, courthouses etc. if they owned them so they’d probably be forced in that direction. .

[Riot]

Some of the budget items (some of the 700 billion you talk about, and the vast majority of both Bush's last increase, and Obama's) were short-term stimulus funding that will not be continued (see how the chart goes down after 2010? See the light blue area of the chart that goes away?)

The administration already cut 1 billion. You laughed at that. A billion here, a billion there, it adds up to real money. Not renewing those unfunded tax cuts would make a huge 700 billion dent to start. Getting out of the wars is the next hunk. What's left is a reasonable budget, compared to our historical norms, we can live easily with (and yes, we should always continue budget prudence)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Some of the budget items (some of the 700 billion you talk about, and the vast majority of both Bush's last increase, and Obama's) were short-term stimulus funding that will not be continued (see how the chart goes down after 2010? See the light blue area of the chart that goes away?))

Then someone's graph is wrong. Mine comes from the White House.

[Riot]

Then someone's graph is wrong. Mine comes from the White House

Your understanding is what is wrong. My graph is a graph (from Congressional Budget Office stats) of the deficit over time and the major contributions to it.

Your graph is the 2009 budget.

Those are two different things.