The Republicans Have a Plan For the Deficit

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 26, 2010 2:35 AM GMT
    Republican John Boehner's Economic Plan Would INCREASE the Deficit by $3.78 Trillion

    1. Fully Extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
    Increase deficits and debt by $3.8 trillion over ten years.

    2. Have the president veto the Employee Free Choice Act, a carbon tax or cap and trade, and "any other tax increases on families and small businesses" if passed during a lame-duck session of Congress.
    Unable to assess impact of hypotheticals, but the provision impairs ability to address deficits and debt, including the potential loss of $624 billion in revenue over ten years from a carbon regime.

    3. Call on Congress to repeal the provision in healthcare reform mandating that small businesses file IRS 1099 forms on purchases of over $600.

    Increase the deficits and debt by $17 billion over ten years per Congressional Budget Office estimate. The provision was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to close the business tax gap.

    4. Reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
    In 2008, non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $494 billion. Under the President's proposed 2011 budget, non-security discretionary spending is $530 billion. In his State of the Union Address, the President announced a three year freeze on non-security discretionary spending, and levels drop to $490 billion in 2012 and $480 billion in 2013.

    Boehner's remarks did not address a plan beyond that point. This proposal would therefore save $36 billion next year and nothing thereafter.

    5. Resignations of the President's economic team, starting with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.

    The position of NEC Director is not Senate confirmed, so it is fair to estimate that it would take the Administration two weeks to fill that position. Estimating for the taxes paid on his $172,000 annual salary, two weeks without an NEC Director would save the Federal government between $5000 and $6000.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner makes an annual salary of $191,300. Because he is Senate confirmed, it is safe to estimate that it will take two months for his confirmation.

    Therefore, two months without a Treasury Secretary would likely save the Federal government between $25,000 and 26,000. Therefore, these resignations amount to a fiscal impact of $30,000 - $32,000 of deficit reduction over the next two months.

    Total Fiscal Impact of the Boehner Plan: Increase Deficits and Debt by roughly $3.781 trillion over ten years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    This corn is well grown and Carthage must be destroyed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    1. Fully Extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
    Increase deficits and debt by $3.8 trillion over ten years.

    Not if you cut government spending. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    2. Have the president veto the Employee Free Choice Act, a carbon tax or cap and trade, and "any other tax increases on families and small businesses" if passed during a lame-duck session of Congress.
    Unable to assess impact of hypotheticals, but the provision impairs ability to address deficits and debt, including the potential loss of $624 billion in revenue over ten years from a carbon regime.

    So? Cut government spending. Then you don't have a shortage of revenue to cover spending. icon_wink.gif


    Webster666 said
    3. Call on Congress to repeal the provision in healthcare reform mandating that small businesses file IRS 1099 forms on purchases of over $600.

    Good idea! And government spending should also be cut. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    4. Reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
    In 2008, non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $494 billion.

    Not enough. More cuts needed. icon_wink.gif




    Webster666 said
    5. Resignations of the President's economic team, starting with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.

    Doesn't matter. There's plenty of equally misguided people out there that would replace them. icon_wink.gif





    Ummm. The problem with Boner's plan, like every other addle-headed thing he has ever said, is that he does say what should be CUT. The Republicans always want to cut taxes but never say what should be cut in services.

    And, if you're hanging your hopes on Paul Ryan (who is kinda cute, btw), don't. His economic plan is ever more hilarious.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 26, 2010 3:42 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    1. Fully Extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
    Increase deficits and debt by $3.8 trillion over ten years.

    Not if you cut government spending. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    2. Have the president veto the Employee Free Choice Act, a carbon tax or cap and trade, and "any other tax increases on families and small businesses" if passed during a lame-duck session of Congress.
    Unable to assess impact of hypotheticals, but the provision impairs ability to address deficits and debt, including the potential loss of $624 billion in revenue over ten years from a carbon regime.

    So? Cut government spending. Then you don't have a shortage of revenue to cover spending. icon_wink.gif


    Webster666 said
    3. Call on Congress to repeal the provision in healthcare reform mandating that small businesses file IRS 1099 forms on purchases of over $600.

    Good idea! And government spending should also be cut. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    4. Reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
    In 2008, non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $494 billion.

    Not enough. More cuts needed. icon_wink.gif




    Webster666 said
    5. Resignations of the President's economic team, starting with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.

    Doesn't matter. There's plenty of equally misguided people out there that would replace them. icon_wink.gif








    FOR YOU STUPID REPUBLICANS, "CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING" IS A BROKEN RECORD (IN EVERY SENSE OF THE PHRASE).

    DO YOU CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHEN YOU'RE IN OFFICE ?
    NO ?
    THEN, STFU ABOUT CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

    2nimhhw.jpg
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 26, 2010 4:15 AM GMT
    and in somewhat-related news...

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1107582/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 4:34 AM GMT
    calibro saidand in somewhat-related news...

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1107582/


    that's a great clip.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 4:37 AM GMT
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    1. Fully Extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
    Increase deficits and debt by $3.8 trillion over ten years.

    Not if you cut government spending. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    2. Have the president veto the Employee Free Choice Act, a carbon tax or cap and trade, and "any other tax increases on families and small businesses" if passed during a lame-duck session of Congress.
    Unable to assess impact of hypotheticals, but the provision impairs ability to address deficits and debt, including the potential loss of $624 billion in revenue over ten years from a carbon regime.

    So? Cut government spending. Then you don't have a shortage of revenue to cover spending. icon_wink.gif


    Webster666 said
    3. Call on Congress to repeal the provision in healthcare reform mandating that small businesses file IRS 1099 forms on purchases of over $600.

    Good idea! And government spending should also be cut. icon_wink.gif



    Webster666 said
    4. Reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
    In 2008, non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $494 billion.

    Not enough. More cuts needed. icon_wink.gif




    Webster666 said
    5. Resignations of the President's economic team, starting with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.

    Doesn't matter. There's plenty of equally misguided people out there that would replace them. icon_wink.gif








    FOR YOU STUPID REPUBLICANS, "CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING" IS A BROKEN RECORD (IN EVERY SENSE OF THE PHRASE).

    DO YOU CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHEN YOU'RE IN OFFICE ?
    NO ?
    THEN, STFU ABOUT CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

    2nimhhw.jpg



    Could we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 5:04 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Could we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.


    Given the propensity of right-wingers to lie often and loudly about just about anything, I'll just file this one along with the rest of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 5:53 AM GMT
    Could we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.[/quote]


    WRONG.
    Just try proving that.
    You can't - because your claim is BS.

    In fact the National Debt total board in NYC - which had been showing the staggering rate of increase of the National Debt all through the Reagan/Bush years - was taken down because the National Debt was actually SHRINKING during the last years of the Clinton administration.

    Tragically, the 2000 election of Bush, and his reimplementation of Republican trickle-down economics soon turned surpluses to deficits again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 6:08 AM GMT
    But this probably is important from the standpoint of day-to-day news cycles. If you want to "win the day" on the cable networks, louis vuittonyou probably need a message that appeals to older people of a higher socioeconomic status. Republicans,prada recently, have tended to place more emphasis on winning daily news cycles where as Democrats -- particularly the President -- seem instead to go for "big" moments. Both parties are really playing to their strengths.
    gucci

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 6:13 AM GMT
    hongjingjingxzb saidBut this probably is important from the standpoint of day-to-day news cycles. If you want to "win the day" on the cable networks, louis vuittonyou probably need a message that appeals to older people of a higher socioeconomic status. Republicans,prada recently, have tended to place more emphasis on winning daily news cycles where as Democrats -- particularly the President -- seem instead to go for "big" moments. Both parties are really playing to their strengths.
    gucci




    wtf?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 8:04 AM GMT
    ?fh=bd6853a1952de9c2b3867973139f48f4
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 2:12 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidCould we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.



    WRONG.
    Just try proving that.
    You can't - because your claim is BS.

    In fact the National Debt total board in NYC - which had been showing the staggering rate of increase of the National Debt all through the Reagan/Bush years - was taken down because the National Debt was actually SHRINKING during the last years of the Clinton administration.

    Tragically, the 2000 election of Bush, and his reimplementation of Republican trickle-down economics soon turned surpluses to deficits again.[/quote]



    As I said I pointed this out once before , and I used all government sources. Since you know so much, why don't you try to disprove it. And try to use government sources for your "simple unspun facts about the state of the economy".


    Could we stop throwing the myth about the Clinton surpluses around. The surplus never existed. The $236 billion a year surplus ($5.6 trillion over 10 years) comes from the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. The 2001 CBO report assumed that the economic growth of thelate 1990's would continue. It also assumed that the Stock Market bubble (which had already peaked) would go on forever and in so doing continue to generate record high taxe-revenue. It assumed that all discretionary spending would fall to levels not seen since the 1930's. I didn't assume any recessions, terrorists attacks, wars or natural disasters.

    Facts show that by mid 1999 we were heading into a down turn. In Clintons final year as President the NASDAQ had lost 50% of it's dollar value ($2.5 trillion) and the Dot Com bubble popped exactly one year before Clinton left office.Every economic indicator had turned downward by Clintons last year--- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the top of the economic bubble are foolish, but projections of surpluses years into the future when all indices were failing is not just foolish but dishonest.
    Clintons last year in office was marked by the Dot Com Bubble crash in 2000, the DOW peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall to an eventual loss of $4 trillion and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P added trillions of dollars more lost in the markets.
    With the markets crashing, federal revenues declined as did GDP growth as Clinton left office. The much lauded Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion FY 1999 to $128 billion in FY 2000, Clinton's last year in office. At the end of Bushes first year the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion . The Clinton budget surpluses had fallen by $393 billion in 24 months and Clinton was in office for 16 of those 24 months.
    Sandwiched between the Dot Com Bubble and the Housing Bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003-2007, with unemployment limited to 6.1%, solid job and productivity growth, deficits being steadily reduced and government growth at a slower relative rate than the GDP. But Bush had to pay for the cost of Clinton's Dot Com Bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc) until the economy began to recover in 2003. At the end of his last term Bush had to deal with the economic collapse triggered by the collapse of the Housing Bubble (created by democrats) .
    To claim Clinton years surpluses and blame Bush entirely for the current economy is not only uninformed but dishonest. I would refer you to the Treasury Dept. and the CBO Budget Report of 2000 and the 28 subsequent budget baseline updates released from the CBO since Jan. 2001.


    The information presented here for the Debt and Deficit during the Clinton years is avaliabel from U. S. Treasury.

    fiscial yr Year Ending NationalDebt Deficit

    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 2:14 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    gregography said
    shybuffguy said
    Could we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.


    Given the propensity of right-wingers to lie often and loudly about just about anything, I'll just file this one along with the rest of them.


    Well, I know gregography the cowardly bear won't see this because he has had to block my posts... but, could someone inform him that there was in fact never any government surpluses during and/or after the Clinton years.

    Again, there were no surpluses.


    The surpluses were as real as the current deficit projections; all based on the same math calculated by the same people.

    You can't expect us to accept your deficit panic without your accepting the surpluses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 2:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    gregography said
    shybuffguy said
    Could we stop using the myth of the Clinton Surpluses, as I pointed out elsewhere, they never existed except for in the heads of liberals.


    Given the propensity of right-wingers to lie often and loudly about just about anything, I'll just file this one along with the rest of them.


    Well, I know gregography the cowardly bear won't see this because he has had to block my posts... but, could someone inform him that there was in fact never any government surpluses during and/or after the Clinton years.

    Again, there were no surpluses.


    The surpluses were as real as the current deficit projections; all based on the same math calculated by the same people.

    You can't expect us to accept your deficit panic without your accepting the surpluses.



    There were no surpluses. They never existed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 2:31 PM GMT
    And the cost of the Iraq War has definitely added to the deficit:
    Financial cost of Iraq WarAccording to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]


    That's more than 1/3 of our current debt.

    SBNot if you cut government spending.

    Ceterum censeo: Carthago Delenda Est

    Plutarch on CatoPublius Scipio Nasica, on the contrary, when called upon for his vote, always ended his speech with this declaration: "In my opinion, Carthage must be spared." 2 He saw, probably, that the Roman people, in its wantonness, was already guilty of many excesses, in the pride of its prosperity, spurned the control of the Senate, and forcibly dragged the whole state with it, whithersoever its mad desires inclined it.
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Aug 26, 2010 2:31 PM GMT
    Boehner is a moron, and i am working tirelessly to get him and Mike Turner out of office this year. I went so far as to take a position on the Roberts campaign against turner and have been working with and making calls for Justin Coussole (boehners opponent).

    Want him gone?
    Visit http://www.coussouleforcongress.com
    or http://www.robertsforohio.com

    Take the two worst republicans out at the knees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 3:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAnd the cost of the Iraq War has definitely added to the deficit:
    Financial cost of Iraq WarAccording to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]


    That's more than 1/3 of our current debt.

    SBNot if you cut government spending.

    Ceterum censeo: Carthago Delenda Est

    Plutarch on CatoPublius Scipio Nasica, on the contrary, when called upon for his vote, always ended his speech with this declaration: "In my opinion, Carthage must be spared." 2 He saw, probably, that the Roman people, in its wantonness, was already guilty of many excesses, in the pride of its prosperity, spurned the control of the Senate, and forcibly dragged the whole state with it, whithersoever its mad desires inclined it.





    Not true! Acording to the CBO the total cost of the Iraq war was $709billion over eight years, from 2003-2010. That's less than the Obama stimulus package in one year !

    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

    From the CBO report, both the wars and the Bush tax cuts were in effect from 2003 through 2007. During that time the deficit trend was downward through 2007. There is a an upward tick in the trend in 2008 and then the trend skyrockets in 2009 ! What might have hapened between 2007 and 2008 and then in 2009?

    Democrats taking over both houses of Congress in 2008, and then the presidency in 2009. Republicans wrote the budget for the fiscal years through2007. Congressional Democrats wrote the the budgets for FY 2008.
    When the democrats took the White house in 2009, they quickly passed the Stimulus.

    The total of all the deficits 2003-2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the cost of the entire Iraq war and there is still a deficit of $4.02 trillion.

    The cost of the Iraq war was spread over eight years.


    The below figures are for the years , 2003 through 2010.

    Total federal outlays: $22,296 billion.
    Cumulative deficit: $4,731 billion.
    Medicare spending: $2,932 billion.
    Iraq War spending: $709 billion.
    The Obama stimulus: $572 billion.


    The Obama stimulus did not even start until 2009. By 2019, the CBO estimates the stimulus will have cost $814 billion.

    The Iraq war under Bush went from 2003-2008. Spending on the war in those years was $554 billion. Federal spending on education over the same period was $574 billion.

    Spending on the Iraq war accounted for 3.2% of all federal spending.

    Spending on the Iraq war was less than a quarter of Medicare spending in the same time frame.

    The Iraq war was less than 15% of total deficit spending 2003-2007.

    The Iraq war is less than 8% of the $9.031 trillion federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010.


    From 2003-2008 the federal government spent more on education than it did on the Iraq war.

    If spending $572 billion in two years stimulates the economy, how does spending $554 billion over a six yeaar period ruin the economy ?



    Data for 2009-2010 from the CBO's recent budget outlook.


    Figures through 2008 are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract.

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_budget--receipts_outlays_and_debt.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
    Shybuffguy, did you even read the quote? It's a long term projection of costs for the Iraq War (BTW we're still spending 2billion a day there and Afghanistan). And that projection was made in 2007 (before the regime change).

    So you say it's fine to throw money elsewhere but stimulus at home is money wasted?

    SB, I think you missed my point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 4:32 PM GMT
    SB, please show me the data that the majority of money is spent in the US.

    Even if true, does it justify it being spent for a war that accomplished nothing but made Iraq unstable and a haven for sectarian conflict? Is that not folly and wasteful? I would rather use the same amount of money to stimulate the economy at home.

    This could have been done with the money spent in or for Iraq:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGj9sKfLls
  • metta

    Posts: 39091

    Aug 26, 2010 5:02 PM GMT
    McCain's Plan was to go to war with Iran and push nationalism to take our minds off what is going on at home.
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    Aug 26, 2010 5:24 PM GMT
    Let me guess.....cut taxes on billionaires and start another war?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 6:27 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidShybuffguy, did you even read the quote? It's a long term projection of costs for the Iraq War (BTW we're still spending 2billion a day there and Afghanistan). And that projection was made in 2007 (before the regime change).

    So you say it's fine to throw money elsewhere but stimulus at home is money wasted?

    SB, I think you missed my point.



    I read it, but I gave yoiu figures just released by the CBO. Those figures reflect the total cost of the Iraq war ($709 billion to 2010, $554 billion over the 6 years of Bush), they arn't projections. Maybe you didn't read whatI wrote!

    Where do you think most of the money spent on the war went, if not at home? Do you not realize that war can stimulate a national economy in the short term. Where do you think the famlies of soldiers are spending most of their money? Where do you think that supplies and services for armed forces come from?

    Again I ask you how is it that $554 billion over six years ruins the economy, but $572 billion over two years stimulates the economy? Btw, have you actually taken a look around you and seen how well the stimulus has worked?
    Mybe you can explain whay with the stimulus we have 9.6% unemployment.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/30/obama_on_unemployment_at_96_at_least_its_not_12_or_13_or_15_percent.html

    Maybe you can explain why the New housing market has the lowest numbers since 1963?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38847695/ns/business-real_estate/

    Maybe you can explain why we have the lowest Existing housing sales since 1996?
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/08/existing-home-sales-lowest-since-1996.html

    Auto sales are down even after the 'jump start" from "cash for clunkers".
    http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1048661_auto-sales-down-but-ford-and-chrysler-take-back-market-share

    Since I'm In business I don't need you to explain to me any of the reasons why businesses arn't hiring. But here's an address incase you want to be educated about at least one of the reasons.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/20/AR2010082005165.html


    Maybe you should have taken the time to read what I wrote before you tried to give me projections when that actual numbers are now avaliable!


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    Courtesy of FactCheck.org...

    FederalDeficit(1).jpg

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

    For specific numbers and a dry read, check out http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf, which is directly from the congressional budget office. The data of interest is on page 11, entitled "Deficits, Surpluses, Debt, and Related Series, 1968 to 2007".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2010 7:06 PM GMT
    The only plan republicans have is to help themselves and the rich.