60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

[trish]

See chart below

[hippifried]

No, true leadership is saying we've gone down the wrong path.

According to whom? & which path was the wrong one? Political finger pointing isn't leadership. So far, the only "changes" I'm hearing from the Chicken Little crowd are reversing the New Deal & every social program that followed. I see no reason for a backtrack just to satisfy some ideological & mythic wishful thinking. We don't live in Ayn Rand's fictional world.

Rolling spending limits back to 2008 is "scorched earth"?

Yes, because it does nothing. It's not even a reduction in spending, even though the numbers can be easily skewed to make it seem so. 2008 was when everything fell apart. Remember? We were spending like crazy, with a huge chunk above & beyond the Congressional appropriations in the "budget". What do we have to show for it?

A 10% reduction to ALL government spending repeated for 3 years is not "whittling away at non-defence discretionary expenditures". Its direct reduction in ALL spending. Its nothing more than reversing the skyrocketing grow we have seen in the size of government in the last 3 years. Did I miss something and the government not operate well in 2008?

Apparently you did. Government was barely operating at all in 2008. It was like they went on sabbatical with pay. The SEC, FTC, & other various alphabets were sitting around contemplating their collective navels & congradulating themselves for doing nothing, when everything came crashing down around their ears because they were doing nothing. We were spending ourselves into oblivion & nothing was being accomplished. Hell, they were blatantly bragging about not trying to accomplish anything.

To hear you tell it, there was no problem before TARP. Which rock were you hiding under again? Do you remember the economic downturn of 2005 & 2006? Remember the "stimulous" in the form of a tax rebate in 2007? It took overturning the Congress in the '06 elections to get that much done, because the sitting government was just denying there was a problem. Apparently you bought it.

As for a 10% cut across the board: Can't do it. There's this little thing called priorities. There's a lot more to governance than money, & it isn't supposed to be a for profit enterprize. It's always in the hole to some extent. The purpose of the government is to provide all those things laid out in the Preamble. All of it. Everybody wants to cherry-pick because everybody has their own set of priorities. Just like everybody has their own take on what's happening & how to deal with it. There's no "one size fits all". Regardless of how loud or panic stricken anybody is, there's not even a consensus that there's a problem or that we're in decline. It's all just opinions & political propaganda.

Sorry, the people of this country are smart enough to see beyond that.

Most people can see past most political claptrap.
Facts are facts. What's dishonest is the spin , delivery, & conclusions.

[Faldur]

Trish your picture is pretty, if my kid drew it I would be very proud. But the fact is its a blatant lie.

“However, if the extension of the tax cuts is viewed in the light of current policy, then it makes no difference to the budget deficit because the baseline remains the same. In other words, extending the Bush era tax cuts won’t cause the deficit to rise.

The cost of the tax cuts depends on the baseline,” says Stan Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications in Washington and a budget expert.

Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected. Extending the cuts to households making over $250,000 a year accounts for $32 billion of that.

Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.

But, viewing the budget differently, as a reflection of current policy, means the tax cuts don’t “cost” the US Treasury revenues. Article by Ron Scherer 12/6/2010

[trish]

But the fact is its a blatant lie.

I see. You could've chosen "incorrect", or "erroneous", or "wrong" etc. But you chose to go with "lie" to emphasize your blind bias. The chart summarizes the analysis by the CBPP of the Congressional Budget Office.

[Faldur]

Your chart summarizes bullshit.. Its a complete fraud. So according to your graph we increase spending $1.7 trillion from 2008 to 2011 and the debt goes down. If only the $300 billion per year was not lost on the Obama tax cuts. Sorry not buying it.

[trish]

according to your graph...

Not my chart, as I said, it's the CBPP analysis of the Congressional Budget Office numbers.

we increase spending $1.7 trillion from 2008 to 2011 and the debt goes down.

Wrong. That's not what the chart says. Try again.

[Faldur]

Wrong. That's not what the chart says. Try again.

Ok, one last time. Your chart indicates that if we only had not gone to war, and the Obama tax breaks had not been in-acted the national debt would have gone down. Our federal debt has gone from 2008 @ $10.69 trillion, to 2011 @ $14.34. The numbers do not add up, and on that basis I say your graph is seriously flawed. I don't care who made it, it is inaccurate.

[trish]

But the chart you've chosen to post from the BEA has absolutely no analysis of the sources of that debt. For that information see this chart.

[Faldur]

But the chart you've chosen to post from the BEA has absolutely no analysis of the sources of that debt. For that information see this chart.

Ok, I do have to say I laughed out loud when I read that..

[Faldur]

And lets look at the accuracy history of that fine organization known as the CBO:

CBO .. Oops, missed it by that much.