Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Proposed budget gets a surplus without cutting entitlements

Page 5 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Jul 2011, 11:51 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The Ryan Plan was one that slowed the amount of spending, I would argue it didn't go fast enough, but even you beloved Former President Bill Clinton praised Ryan for having the courage to submit something.

The Ryan Plan was slower at growing the debt than Obama's proposal, but so what? Obama is not a legislator anymore. The budget put forward by the Progressive Caucus actually balanced the budget and started us running surpluses.


And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man. Fact is it, didn't get enough Democrat votes to make it out of sub-committee, or if it did it was never scheduled to be debated on the senate floor, and that is entirely the responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader.

Orwell wrote:
And don't make assumptions about my views. I think Clinton was a decent President, but I am certainly not a cult follower like you are. I can disagree with Clinton on any number of issues.


I actually can't stand Clinton, I wouldn't trust him in an outhouse with a muzzle on, that said he seems to be behaving more rationally than Democrats in Congress and the White House are.

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
Also, I highly doubt Republicans have that much power in any committee in the Senate to kill a budget proposal, and they definately didn't in 2009 and 2010.

Pay attention, nitwit. Budgets originate in the House. The budget referred to in the OP was drafted at roughly the same time as the Ryan budget- after Republicans took the House.


Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 12:05 am

Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Jul 2011, 12:07 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.


No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Jul 2011, 12:10 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.


No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

30 Jul 2011, 12:14 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.


No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.


It's amazing that Far-Right Extremist Inuyasha has failed to really address Orwell's claim and, no doubt out of obliviousness to his own extremism, has labled the Centre-Right Democrats "Far-left". The conservative PM of Sweden practically agreed with all of Obama's policy positions (and that was BEFORE Obama was nudged even further to the Right by Republican hissy-fits).

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeolog ... t_wing.php


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Last edited by Master_Pedant on 30 Jul 2011, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 12:14 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.

No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?

If you call them "socialist" enough, people will start to believe it without regard to the easily verified fact that the Obama administration has been, in actual policy, utterly indistinguishable from a right-wing Republican administration. In many ways, more right-wing than a typical Republican administration.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

30 Jul 2011, 12:19 am

The GDP growth projections used in this analysis are unrealistic considering the tax hikes.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Jul 2011, 12:25 am

Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.

No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?

If you call them "socialist" enough, people will start to believe it without regard to the easily verified fact that the Obama administration has been, in actual policy, utterly indistinguishable from a right-wing Republican administration. In many ways, more right-wing than a typical Republican administration.


:roll:

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/201 ... oon-yogurt

I tried to find a Youtube video link, but the only video on youtube cuts out a lot of what Paul Ryan actually said in an attempt to smear him, kinda typical of the left-wing drive by media.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 12:31 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.

No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?

If you call them "socialist" enough, people will start to believe it without regard to the easily verified fact that the Obama administration has been, in actual policy, utterly indistinguishable from a right-wing Republican administration. In many ways, more right-wing than a typical Republican administration.


:roll:

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/201 ... oon-yogurt

I tried to find a Youtube video link, but the only video on youtube cuts out a lot of what Paul Ryan actually said in an attempt to smear him, kinda typical of the left-wing drive by media.

You're still not addressing anything. You still evidently have no idea what this thread is even referring to.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Jul 2011, 12:35 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And it was chalked full of accounting gimicks like "double counting" to the point that it made Bernie Madoff look like an honest man.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're still probably not even referring to the same budget. Do you even know what this proposed budget does at all?

Quote:
Again there was no budget in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, so this blame Republicans B.S. isn't going to fly. In fact in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could effectively pass whatever the hell they wanted. The fact they couldn't pass a budget with an effective fillabuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and while they had control of the House of Representatives kinda makes your argument look rather shabby wouldn't you say?

When have I ever been a supporter of the Democratic leadership? They've been pathetic for the last several years. Again, the budget I'm referring to was proposed by the Progressive caucus. The right-wing Blue Dogs seem to dominate party leadership.

No, you say the Democrats aren't far left enough, though they have already lost all sense of reality.
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?

If you call them "socialist" enough, people will start to believe it without regard to the easily verified fact that the Obama administration has been, in actual policy, utterly indistinguishable from a right-wing Republican administration. In many ways, more right-wing than a typical Republican administration.


:roll:

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/201 ... oon-yogurt

I tried to find a Youtube video link, but the only video on youtube cuts out a lot of what Paul Ryan actually said in an attempt to smear him, kinda typical of the left-wing drive by media.

You're still not addressing anything. You still evidently have no idea what this thread is even referring to.


I have a rough idea, and quite frankly offhand I'm going to guess it suggests massive tax hikes on the rich (taxing small business out of existence), gutting our military, etc.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Jul 2011, 12:39 am

Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
How are they far-left in any way whatsoever?

If you call them "socialist" enough, people will start to believe it without regard to the easily verified fact that the Obama administration has been, in actual policy, utterly indistinguishable from a right-wing Republican administration. In many ways, more right-wing than a typical Republican administration.
Yeah by their definition Eisenhower was a socialist bastard. He opposed McCarthy too, that's a double whammy! I think the whole McCarthyist crap is just a scheme to make people brush off corporatism by making all Government economic intervention out to be inherently socialist. Doesn't matter if the Government intervention is corporate OR social welfare, they'll just start No True Scotsmanning it and projecting it onto the left side of the spectrum so that the finger won't be pointed at the corporatist schemers.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 12:43 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I have a rough idea, and quite frankly offhand I'm going to guess it suggests massive tax hikes on the rich (taxing small business out of existence), gutting our military, etc.

"Massive" would be an overstatement. It basically returns taxation to Clinton-era levels, which were the lowest they had ever been in the latter half of the 20th century. Your "small business" shtick has been refuted a dozen times on here and elsewhere. It would make significant cuts to the military, but you can hardly call it "gutting" when we would still be by far the biggest military spender in the world. I believe it would still leave our military spending at over 1/3 of the world total, whereas currently US military spending accounts for half the world total.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Jul 2011, 12:49 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I have a rough idea, and quite frankly offhand I'm going to guess it suggests massive tax hikes on the rich (taxing small business out of existence), gutting our military, etc.

"Massive" would be an overstatement. It basically returns taxation to Clinton-era levels, which were the lowest they had ever been in the latter half of the 20th century. Your "small business" shtick has been refuted a dozen times on here and elsewhere. It would make significant cuts to the military, but you can hardly call it "gutting" when we would still be by far the biggest military spender in the world. I believe it would still leave our military spending at over 1/3 of the world total, whereas currently US military spending accounts for half the world total.


1. Raising taxes will not help the economy, the only reason Clinton didn't have a full blown depression on his hands was because of the dot com bubble.

2. Our military equipment is getting old, China is developing new aircraft that can out perform our aging F-15's.

3. Your so called refutions have been refuted numerous times.

4. Bush's tax cuts actually caused an increase in revenue, and I'm going to see if you are just going to start mindlessly claiming that to be false or if you stop to think about all the parameters that were in play. Cause I actually don't even need a source to prove that Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in revenue.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Jul 2011, 12:50 am

FFS, Inuyasha, grow a f*****g brain cell or two that can fire independent of mirroring Faux news.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... l-20110428
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... _proposals
a somewhat critical look at it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 1:04 am

Inuyasha wrote:
1. Raising taxes will not help the economy, the only reason Clinton didn't have a full blown depression on his hands was because of the dot com bubble.

Unsupported assertion. Not even worth addressing.

Quote:
2. Our military equipment is getting old, China is developing new aircraft that can out perform our aging F-15's.

OK? We're buying JSFs. Under the People's Budget, we would still be outspending China by quite a bit. When you combine us and our close allies, we would still control the majority of the world's military spending. Incidentally, China doesn't even have the capability to do their own jet engines yet, so we don't have to panic over their military capabilities yet. Besides all of that, we have more than enough firepower to end the entire planet. No one who values their life is going to mess with us. Period.

Quote:
3. Your so called refutions have been refuted numerous times.

I guess the US Census data are lying, then.

Quote:
Cause I actually don't even need a source to prove

Of course not. You just assert things and that magically makes them true. You're like an ostrich sticking its head in the ground. :lol:


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Jul 2011, 1:04 am

LKL wrote:
FFS, Inuyasha, grow a f***ing brain cell or two that can fire independent of mirroring Faux news.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... l-20110428
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... _proposals
a somewhat critical look at it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html


:roll:

Yes, let's look at DNC talking points, those must be credible. :roll:


Okay I was hoping Orwell could figure it out instead of being an idiot, but since you blindly charged in.


Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in revenue because the unemployment rate fell to around 4-5% or near full employment, this caused the number of people paying taxes to increase, which offset the amount of revenue lost if the economic had stayed constant.

4-5% unemployment vs. an official unemployment of over 9% and an unofficial unemployment of over 17% (probably a lot higher).

Highest unemployment figure from 2001 to 2007 was 6.3% which was in June of 2003. Unemployment then started to decrease until between 2005 and 2007 the number never went above 5.5%, it really started to increase in 2007, and started shooting up in 2008, then kicked into overdrive when Obama took office, reaching 10.1% at one point. In fact the lowest unemployment Obama had was in January, 2009.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Oh and that's if we go by the Government's numbers, which they took 100,000 people at least off the rolls to make the unemployment numbers look better, because people have given up looking for jobs.