60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

Ok Hippi, I will type this real slow so even you can understand it. In 2008 we had a federal budget that was $2,813 billion dollars. Today we have a budget $3,820 billion, ya still with me? The big number is 36% bigger than the little one, that represents 36% growth in the federal government in 3 years. Now if you reverse that trend for 3 years back to the 2008 level of spending, along with some tactical useless department closures, including a reasonable tax increase on all working americans, you have a balanced or what we like to call, "responsible" budget.

In my opinion in 2008 we were still spending money like drunken sailors, but at least if we go back to that level people like you can waste money within your budget. You want to give money away, be my guest. But I and many others are not going to allow you to give away more than you take in.

And we're 36% healthier than we were in 2008 when W had us headed down into a financial rat-hole. Job growth was at a virtual standstill all through the Bush administration. The ballooning sub-prime housing market was sucking the life blood from the country. So much for the benefits of trickle down and the efficiency of the private sector. Yes, we recently spent money and it kept us from spiraling down the drain. Now is not the time to cut the legs out from under the people who actually keep the economy going. No, I'm not talking about the wealthiest 1% that possess nearly 40% of the nation's wealth. If you want to cut federal programs, cut defense, cut homeland security, cut the Bush drug plan and substitute with one that actually makes sense. Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you actually want to make a dent in the deficit, collect some revenue: let the Bush tax spending bill expire.

Haha, thats some funny shit there Trish. Really were 36% healthier? Ok.. unemployment in 2008 was 5.8%, lets see a 36% improvement means our current unemployment is 3.71% God bless barack obama! In case you haven't noticed hun, unemployment is at 9%. Your getting nothing for your spending increase, anyone can see that. Unemployment Data

cut defense, I did that, 30% over 3 years that not enough? cut homeland security, with ya all the way, cut the Bush drug plan and substitute with one that actually makes sense, by all means, but means test what ever you come up with to ensure it saves us money, Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow would not be soon enough.

If you actually want to make a dent in the deficit, collect some revenue, I did I proposed raising taxes on all working Americans by 3%. Someone making $40,000 a year will be burdened $1,110.00, thats not too much to ask of someone who is not currently paying anything in taxes. And someone making $150,000.00 would pay an additional $4,386.00. Its fair, each and every working American paying there part to get us out of this mess. 10 years only and the tax sunsets.

Quote:

---

Ok Hippi, I will type this real slow so even you can understand it. In 2008 we had a federal budget that was $2,813 billion dollars. Today we have a budget $3,820 billion, ya still with me?

---

Well of course I'm still with ya. We seem to be in agreement that waging war off budget is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

The big number is 36% bigger than the little one,

---

Still here.

Quote:

---

that represents 36% growth in the federal government in 3 years.

---

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget, & lets you see all the numbers. What? Too complicated? Do I need to keep everything at 2 syllables or less?

Quote:

---

...blah blah blah... "responsible" budget.

---

What was irresponsible, was keeping real costs of military adventurism from the American people. It's irresponsible to continue the lie as if it never happened.

Really... If I wanted simplistic know-nothing inanity, I'd go get financial assessments from the grade school down the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget, & lets you see all the numbers.

---

So the $158 included in the 2011 budget for the Iraq and Afghanistan war is the reason it went up 36%? Isn't your math a little screwed up?

Thats ok little man, keep at it your gonna get it.. :wiggle:

Quote:

---

Not really. It just represents a stop in the lying about the budget...

---

Exactly. Remember the running costs of two wars never were included in the budget numbers during the Bush years. (And the cost of two wars over two terms was over a trillion, not 158 billion http://costofwar.com/en/ ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Exactly. Remember the running costs of two wars never were included in the budget numbers during the Bush years. (And the cost of two wars over two terms was over a trillion, not 158 billion http://costofwar.com/en/ ).

---

While I agree Bush should have paid for the wars as we engaged, at some point you all have to stop looking in the rear view mirror. People that do that constantly usually can't navigate the road ahead. You constantly and conveniently omit is the fact that for 2 years out of Bush's second term he had a Democratic congress and the debt still kept increasing as a percent of GDP. How do you explain that Trish? They could have forced the President to pay for the wars had they been as fiscally prudent as your fantasy seems to suggest. They did not. Here is a fact....remember when a fact was a fact? No base line budgeting gimmicks, no blame Bush, Just this...

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Here's another FACTUAL way to assess Barry's fercious spending ...

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion -- a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).



To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year -- or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

Checkmate

You liberals need to stop fucking with the numbers. Go ahead....make my day. Dispute these numbers...you can't. You Greek style socialists need to stop playing cute with the numbers. Next you'll tell us that inflation isn't really that bad....(because food and energy prices aren't included in the inflation index, yet they're the 2 most critical things to our everyday life) I can see Obama out there on the stump telling us about how low inflation is....wink wink. Who ya gonna believe...him or your wallet?

Under Bush the deficit was rose 84.22%. Not because of the wars, because they were figured into his budget calculations. That 84.22% is due to the failure of the Bush Tax-Spending Bill and the trickle down theory. Jobs creation was stagnant through most of his tenure in office, except for the last few months when jobs plummeted and economy collapsed in the worst recession we've ever seen. Not only was the deficit increasing but the rate of deficit growth was increasing (i.e. the second derivative of the deficit with respect to time was positive). The cost of the wars finally got included during the Obama administration when Obama included them. So the 32.42% increase rise under Obama's tenure so far is 1) not entirely his doing; and 2) the rate of deficit growth is possibly decreasing (i.e. the second derivative of the deficit with respect to time is now negative even though the deficit itself is still climbing).

Trish thats complete nonsense, the yearly budgets are easily accessible. 84% are you kidding me? Look at the facts sweetheart, The Federal Budget, 2004-2009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Trish thats complete nonsense, the yearly budgets are easily accessible. 84% are you kidding me? Look at the facts sweetheart, The Federal Budget, 2004-2009

---

I'll type very slowly, so you can follow, using the numbers onmyknees cited in post #47 above.

100% x (10.626 billion dollars - 5.768 billion dollars)/(5.768 billion dollars) = 100% x (4.858 billion dollars)/(5.768 billion dollars) = 84.22%.