gbaji wrote:
Also, that's not an accurate version of the process. They voted against the spending. They were overruled by the Democrats. Then, their constituents applied for grants based on funding from new spending. All they did was sign off on those grants essentially saying "this grant does qualify for the funding based on the criteria of the law". That's it. There's no moral decision being made in terms of whether that funding should exist in the first place.
Except the funding wouldn't exist if they "won" their vote. But since they lost the vote & the funding does exist, they no longer have to stick to their morals. Well, they have to stick to their morals publicly, but privately they can request a piece of that sweet, waistful, spending that they voted against.
Gbaji wrote:
It's politics to make this out to be hypocrisy too. Let's look both ways before crossing the political street, ok?
Yup, coast is clear. Democrats are voting for the spending & requesting it for their constituents while some Pubbies are voting against the spending but also quietly requesting it for their constituents. Ones the definition of hypocrisy, the other isn't.
Omega wrote:
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...you're lying. You've now trying to change the argument to be about the "rate" of spending increases.
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Because that's what matters.
This is where Gbaji freely admitted to lying, for perhaps the first time ever, on teh internet. The Apocalypse is now imminent.
Quote:
Lol! Where the hell did you pull that out from? I particularly love how they compare 8 years of *actual* changes in spending/taxes during Bushs term (although they seem to have tacked on an extra 800 billion of stimulus from some magical pocket universe) to 1 year of Obama. But hey! They included "projections", which amazingly enough project that we wont pass another spending bill with a single dime more cost for the next 8 years! You don't really buy that, do you?
That graph came from the NYT, uses the CBO's own numbers, & tells you the costs of
policy changes made under the two Presidents. That almost $800 million in 2008 stimulus & other changes is made up of Dubya's $152 billion 2008 economic stimulus package & "other" stuff (I don't know, nor could I find, what that other $500 billion actually is- but even without it the
Legacy of Dubya's policy changes thus far remain more than Obama's (thus far) even without it).
Fact: Dubya's Policy changes under his term are costing us more than Obama's policy changes thus far.
Gbaji wrote:
You're the one taking some partisan source's bogus chart as some kind of gospel.
Damn the CBO for the partisan hackery!
Gbaji wrote:
None of this matters. you can gussy up the numbers anyway you want to make spending look huge during Bush's term, and small during Obama's, but at the end of the day the only numbers that matter are the results. How much was actually spent, how much we actually took in as revenue, how much deficit resulted, and how much debt resulted from that. Those are the only figures which matter.
Agreed. Here's another chart, this time with numbers from those partisan douchebags @ the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlighting the cost to the Deficit of various Dubya Policies as well as Obama's stimulus (Recovery Measures on the chart)(Non-Partisan)
The chart clarifies that deficit problems would be on the path to self-correction, if the Bush cuts had lapsed as originally planned. (And what it doesn't show, is how heavily those tax cuts are skewed towards the "rich"!!!)
Take a look at where the deficit would be without the wars, tax cuts, recession, TARP, & economic recovery efforts (Answer: Almost 0).
Gbaji wrote:
Why are you pulling out some ridiculous hacked up partisan source's chart? Why not look at the actual CBO historical data? That's what I use, because it tells us the actual numbers. And those numbers show us that absent the current high unemployment and low economic activity, the current tax rates will generate sufficient revenue. It's not a tax rate problem. It's that our spending outstripped our revenue during the recession to such a degree that we have created a second economic problem in the form of looming debt.
No amount of providing bogus charts changes that clear fact. Spending has been abnormally high since Obama took office.
But...I used a chart with the CBO's numbers on the costs of policy changes under two Presidents. Unfortunately, I can't use the CBO's historical data on Obama since all of his spending related to policy changes haven't happened yet, I can only use the CBO's projections.
But Dubya's policy change numbers come from that historical data, that you use.
Spending has increased under Obama & revenue remains down because of the extension of Dubya's tax cuts. I can blame Obama for extending them, no problem, but you're too much of a partisan hack to admit that those tax cuts are even a contributing factor to our looming debt.
Which is wrong, as it's a fact that it is.
A fact, which is inarguable. You can continue attempting to say Dubya's tax cuts aren't contributing to our debt, but everytime you do: you're wrong.
Omega wrote:
I saw where Dubya & Obama increased spending after the 2008 recession & how now, it's started to level off. Funny how you can't see that.
Gbaji wrote:
No, I do see that. The problem is that it has "leveled off" at a higher level relative to GDP than it was prior to the recession. Had spending increased and then dropped back down to pre-recession levels, there wouldn't be a problem. But spending increased and has stayed increased. That's a problem. We've turned a short term economic problem into a long term economic problem. And that's because of spending.
Charts level off before they can go down. I now know you're chart retarded.
Gbaji wrote:
Your argument is based on the assumption that if we'd kept the rates at a higher level, that the economy would have acted exactly the same as it did with the lower rates.
No, my argument is & always has been that increasing taxes (revenue) while reducing spending would have been a better plan to reduce the deficit (& debt) than just cutting spending. The economy's recent "hiccup" is mostly attributed to the S&P downgrade of our countries credit rating & it is my belief that, since increasing revenue while cutting spending is a better solution than just doing one or the other, the S&P downgrade may not have happened if a compromise on the debt deal including both options was reached.
Gbaji wrote:
That calculated "cost" of the Bush tax cuts is simply vapor-revenue. It's a math trick. Similarly, the calculated increase in revenue if we eliminated the Bush rates (on whomever), are also illusory. We wont get that money. What will happen is that economic activity will decrease in the areas where we increase tax rates. After 2-3 years, the resulting revenue will be about the same as it was before changing the rates.
Here is where you started talking out of your *** some more. So, you think in 2-3 years revenue from increased taxes will reach the levels of revenue before the tax increase took effect: this implies we'll have 2-3 years of increased revenue due to raising taxes.
You do that & close some tax loopholes & those 2-3 years will increase some more, even though I believe you're wrong in your philosophy that increasing someone's taxes will make them want to earn less money.
Furthermore, your argument that if you tax people more they'll try & make less money is circular bullsh
it. If Dubya hadn't lowered taxes, even by your neo-conservative logic, the government would still be getting the revenue it was getting before taxes were lowered. There'd be no imaginary uber-rich guy thinking, "I should make less money this year so I pay less taxes" if taxes weren't lowered in the first place.
They were, the tax cuts/;ack of revenue contributed to the deficit, which in turn contributed to our debt. End of story.
Gbaji wrote:
If you can't counter that, then please stop trying to count tax rate change revenue like it's money in the bank. It's not.
You countered it for me, thanks!
Gbaji wrote:
Gah!!!! The very fact that you used the phrase "paid off the deficit" shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You're right, Clinton didn't pay off the deficit. My bad.
Clinton
eliminated the deficit & paid down some of our debt.
[quote=Gbaji]It was spending which clearly changed. We should change it back if we want to fix things. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to grasp. [/quote]
You're half right- it was increased spending coupled with lower tax revenues that actually changed. This is a fact.
[quote=Gbaji]We spent too much money. I just don't understand how it's possible not to accept this. I'm using direct CBO data. There's no fudging, or selective accounting. I'm looking at total spending and total revenue. I'm comparing relative level over time. it's not hard math. You have to work really really really hard to figure out a way to manipulate the numbers to make it show anything other than that we spent too damn much money. [/quote]
I agree. Dubya spent too much money & Obama is spending too much money. We've been running a deficit for 10 years & adding to our debt the whole time. We should totally cut spending & raise taxes in order to lessen our deficit & pay down our debt.
That could, ya know, actually
solve this debt crisis.
Edited, Aug 30th 2011 6:35am by Omegavegeta