Brother, can you spare a Trillion?
Don't worry, our country will never be in the financial mess that Greece finds itself in. The bad news is that we are in a much deeper and severe mess then Greece ever could ever be in. I guess in a way, they are the "lucky ones"?
It's amazing how the people who are standing up and trying to stop the government's out of control spending are the ones being labeled as the "extremists". Welcome to absurdastan. Can we afford four more years of Obama?
It's amazing how the people who are standing up and trying to stop the government's out of control spending are the ones being labeled as the "extremists". Welcome to absurdastan. Can we afford four more years of Obama?
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 8:17 PM
34 Comments:
Typical right wing "half truth's", or better still, FOX News styled "word play misinformation." To start the video, the narrator says this;
"Did you know that our Federal Government spent $413 Billion on interest payments just last year?".
"NO", the Federal Government did not "spend" $413 Billion on interest payments just last year. The Federal Government spent $197 Billion on interest last year, fiscal year 2010. Due to interest rates the payment was slightly higher than 2009, $186.9B, but considerably lower than 2008, $252.8B and 2007, $237.1B.
The figure he's referring to, is the interest on the "TOTAL" debt, not the payments. Quite a deceptive tactic to start with. Yet he continues to pile on to the "LIE" by claiming;
"In 2010 alone, we spent more on interest payments on the debt....
Lets say last year you took out a 5 year loan with payments where the interest will "total" $1000.00 at the end of the loan. If someone asks you, "how much did you SPEND on your loans interest payments for last year", would you tell them $1000.00???
Then he starting rattling off at least 12 different government departments and agencies, as if his claim of what was "SPENT" was true! I checked just three before I came up with a total that went past the actual $197 billion.
Dept. of Health and Human Services 2010 budget: $78.4 billion.
Department of Transportation 2010 Budget: $73.3 billion.
Department of Veteran Affairs. 2010 Budget: $112.8 billion.
That means that I didn't even get through the first "half" of his presentation without encountering a "LIE." Thus, it made no sense to continue watching and listening...
The figure he's referring to, is the interest on the "TOTAL" debt, not the payments.
You mean we don't have to pay the principle we've already borrowed back? All we've got to do is pay interest? Whodathunkit!
No, paying back the "principle" we've borrowed isn't "interest", but it is the "debt".
Take your weasel words back to Congress where you came from, p. anthony. That way, when we don't increase next year's budget the planned 5% (you only increase it 4%) over last year, you can tell the American people about how much you've "cut" spending in DC.
Only in p. anthony's world is a promised $4 trillion dollar "cut" never understood to be what it really is, for what it is REALLY is, is a $10 trillion dollar spending INCREASE...
ps - of course none of this addresses the over $61 trillion in unfunded obligations that the federal government has already accrued thus far... let's just hope p. anthony's kids will pay it for him.
America's AAA bond rating is ALREADY history. Even if the Reid plan passes, our bond rating is toast. There's just no "there" there in his phoney spending cuts for the market to react to.
p allen "Typical right wing "half truth's", or better still, FOX News styled "word play misinformation." To start the video, the narrator says this
Let me guess allen,we need to tune into Al Sharpton on MSNBC for the " full truth"? lol The Congressional Budget Office has been proven to be wrong in the past. Regardless, we are spending a hell of a lot more money then we are taking in. Tell me all great knowing. What was the annual deficit the last year Bush was in office COMPARED TO right now allen?
Joe Conservative "You mean we don't have to pay the principle we've already borrowed back? All we've got to do is pay interest? Whodathunkit!"
I would be cursing and screaming at the people in congress if I was a congressman Joe. How in the hell can we continue to "borrow more money then what we have coming in as revenue"? The wizards in Washington keep saying that the debt ceiling needs to be raised or all hell will break lose, what they are talking about is "where are they going to get the money to pay for the increased spending under a raised debt ceiling. If a credit card company knew that a customer couldn't pay it's bills with the money in that person's budget, that CC company would never increase that person's credit limit just because he or she requested it.
Joe;"You mean we don't have to pay the principle we've already borrowed back? All we've got to do is pay interest?".
The narrator said nothing about "principle", YOU DID! This is what the narrator said;
""Did you know that our Federal Government spent $413 Billion on interest payments just last year?".
Okay, did the government "SPEND" $413 billion on interest last year? Yes or No?
I posted a link to the CBO website that shows the government "SPENT" (Table E-5, "Outlays for Major Categories of SPENDING") $196.9 billion on the interest of the national debt in fiscal year 2010. There's now way it can be worded or spun to mean anything other that what it is...
Thus, anyone who disputes these facts is either a pathological liar, or very very very very stupid! Take your pick.
CB;"we are spending a hell of a lot more money then we are taking in".
Absolutely correct! There are only two reasons why the government is TAKING IN less taxes.
1. Fewer people working, translates into less taxes being paid.
2. Taxes being CUT or EVADED, translates to less taxes being paid.
Fewer people are working is a direct result of the recession. You all should know what happened in September 2008, so I won't post a link.
Next is the "tax cuts." On this blog and every other right-wing blog I've posted on, I've repeatably asked for HISTORIC PROOF showing where tax cuts have;
1. increased government revenues
2. created job growth
I'm tired of posting links because, obviously, some of you ignore them. Therefore, I just give you the facts and you'll have to look them up for yourselves.
"When Reagan took office in 1980, individual tax revenue stood at 9% of GDP. That fell to 8% by 1988 when he left office. Corporate tax revenue fell from 2.4% of GDP to 1.9% during the same period. Total revenues for the government fell from 19% to 18.2% of GDP. Even though GDP grew from almost $3 to $5 trillion, government debt grew from 26.1% of GDP to 41%. What actually happened was that federal debt almost doubled, not revenue. The moral of this story: A thriving economy plus tax cuts equals less revenue and increased debt".
On the idea of job growth... How stupid can any conservative be, seeing that the Bush tax cuts have been in place more than 10 years, to believe that any substantial amount of jobs were created over the past 10 years!
Lastly...Is spending a problem? Of course is and HAS BEEN! FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS government spending has been out of control. Unnecessary war in Iraq. The Bush tax cut spending. Bank bailouts. More than $250 billion spent on 9/11 alone, not counting the WOT and both Afghan an Iraq wars.
Okay, did the government "SPEND" $413 billion on interest last year? Yes or No?
No, but it's a distinction with little difference. They're BOTH (principle and interest) part of the problem, and THAT problem is the debt (although now you'll probably start to rant on about the "deficit" and thereby cloud the argument even further). So to win a debate point you would seek to evade the "point" of the entire argument.... that it's costing the Treasury $413 billion a year, NOT "just" $197 billion in interest a year.
2. Taxes being CUT or EVADED, translates to less taxes being paid.
Revenue increased under Reagan when taxes were cut. THAT is a FACT! Every dollar NOT sent to the government in DC translates to a dollar invested in America's REAL economy, and NOT some artificial DC tax-loop-hole "bubble" (ie - "green" jobs).
The housing bubble has "popped" and now the education "bubble" is popping, p. anthony. Too many years of government "subsidies" have priced the experience beyond its' value. No one is going to spend money to go to college anymore except for fools and stupid people. Which one are you?
lol!
"When Reagan took office in 1980, individual tax revenue stood at 9% of GDP. That fell to 8% by 1988 when he left office. Corporate tax revenue fell from 2.4% of GDP to 1.9% during the same period. Total revenues for the government fell from 19% to 18.2% of GDP. Even though GDP grew from almost $3 to $5 trillion, government debt grew from 26.1% of GDP to 41%. What actually happened was that federal debt almost doubled, not revenue. The moral of this story: A thriving economy plus tax cuts equals less revenue and increased debt".
Thanks for supplying the moral of the story. Reagan started with a DEAD Stag-flated economy and left us with a THRIVING economy.
Total revenues for the government fell from 19% to 18.2% of GDP.
18.2% of $1,000,000 is a lot MORE than 19% of $10. That's a FACT that even an idiot like yourself, cannot deny.
I can't stop laughing listening to the whole" rich people don't pay their FAIR share" BS. The upper two percent of Americans pay 50% of the overall taxes collected by the IRS. If the class warfare crowd was so much into "equality and fairness" as they claim, they would be the first people out their advocating a consumption tax over the current tax structure that is in place now. The congresses and presidents over the years have gotten our country into this mess, so why should people who weren't responsible for creating this mess be singled out to "pay more" to help fix it? Explain that to me.
FJ "Revenue increased under Reagan when taxes were cut. THAT is a FACT! Every dollar NOT sent to the government in DC translates to a dollar invested in America's REAL economy, and NOT some artificial DC tax-loop-hole "bubble" (ie - "green" jobs)."
It is so nice to have people who understand common sense explain things. Thanks FJ, I couldn't have said it better myself. Liberals don't want to understand reality, it goes against their brain scrubbing. Our nation has historically never been a nation of savers, we are a nation of spenders.
As you pointed out,
the more money we keep =
more money we will spend =
more tax revenue generated from the goods and services we consume
This is core elementary logic, yet it might as well be a concept said in a different language to the left. Every time taxes have been cut as you pointed out, REVENUES INCREASED. It has a proven historic track record.
p allen "Absolutely correct! There are only two reasons why the government is TAKING IN less taxes.
1. Fewer people working, translates into less taxes being paid.2. Taxes being CUT or EVADED, translates to less taxes being paid."
Excessive Taxation is money taken out of the economy just like high gas p;rices do allen. I hear it all the time how the left claims that Clinton increased taxes and the economy grew. They always, always, always leave out that little event from 1997 to 2000 know as the "DOT COM BOOM". Provide the track record that proves that raising taxes helps economic activity allen. I just thought of something. If raising taxes is so beneficial to economic growth, why not increased EVERYBODY'S TAXES ACROSS THE BORARD from working poor to middle class to make it happen and not just people who make over $200k a year?
I love the Left's "oil company" bogeyman. If the Left wants oil companies to pay more taxes, perhaps they should let them drill more oil in the USA and Gulf, instead of sending them to other countries to drill and pay taxes.
There's so much oil in the Gulf, even CUBA's starting drill for it... but the Democrats have scared off ANOTHER ten rigs from America's shore...
...but then lower gasoline prices would KILL all their "make believe" Disneyland Tomorrowland/ Fantasyland "green" jobs...
A bird in the bush is worth ten birds in hand to brain-dead Democrats.
FJ;"No, but it's a distinction with little difference. They're BOTH (principle and interest) part of the problem, and THAT problem is the debt".
Half of your response (the "NO" answer) deserves kudos! Finally, a straight shooter...
Yes, interest and principal are the "COMBINED" problem. However, my initial argument is with the video narrators disingenuous assertion. His implication (scare tactic) was that the government spent more last year on interest than what was spent on the 12 departments he outlined. That, is just NOT TRUE...
FJl"Revenue increased under Reagan when taxes were cut. THAT is a FACT!.
THAT IS A LIE! Revenues only increased after Reagan RAISED TAXES!
Here's what happened when Reagan CUT taxes;
Figures In Billions....
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
-264.4.
Interest and Dividends Tax Compliance Act of 1983
-1.8.
Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986
-0.2.
Tax Reform Act of 1986
-8.9.
Total cumulative tax cuts
-275.3.
The is what happened when Reagan RAISED taxes
-Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3.
-Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9.
-Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6.
-Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2.
-Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4.
-Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9.
-Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4.
-Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6.
-Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8.
-Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6.
-Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0.
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 4-4.
Do some research on your own! Quit believing everything you're told simply because it come's from right-wing mouth pieces.
FJ:"but then lower gasoline prices would KILL all their "make believe" Disneyland Tomorrowland/ Fantasyland "green" jobs...".
Yeah FJ, who wants to believe in that junk science "innovation" stuff. Gosh darn smelly noisy oily petrol eating contraption on wheels. Everybody knows that no "auto-mobile" will ever replace the old dependable four legged beast of burden! If you can't farm it, and pull a plow, taint worth yer time!
I was a child of the 80s you fool. I do seem to recall life being better off back then under Reagan and we used to have our Christmas's as well. Not any more. The late 90s were not to shabby as well. Gee, Allen, i wonder of it has anything to do with the current idea at the time with you know who and i am not talking about Clinton starting it. That is real history pal and it happened. I miss those days. This is why Conservatism works. History speaks louder then you posting stats all day long.
His implication (scare tactic) was that the government spent more last year on interest than what was spent on the 12 departments he outlined. That, is just NOT TRUE...
But what WAS 100% TRUE was that the government spent more last year on servicing the DEBT than was spent on the 12 departments he outlined. And THAT is the point you give a political "pass" to.
"blah, blah, blah... the Reagan tax cuts meant less money"...
The numbers don't lie.
Now let's look at yours...
Total cumulative tax cuts
-275.3.
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7.
Net effect of two statements above -142.6
...and total tax revenues in the linked graphs still went up!
Now be honest, p. anthony. Admit now that your claims don't hold water.
Yeah FJ, who wants to believe in that junk science "innovation" stuff. Gosh darn smelly noisy oily petrol eating contraption on wheels. Everybody knows that no "auto-mobile" will ever replace the old dependable four legged beast of burden! If you can't farm it, and pull a plow, taint worth yer time!
lol! Spoken by the man who bans nuclear reactors and puts up windmills to replace them. Geeez, how bout we get rid of them gas-o-lean engines, and put some new fangled leyden jar bat-trees in it!
p anthony,
Get you head out of the weeds. You can't see the forest for all the trees...
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
-264.4.
Interest and Dividends Tax Compliance Act of 1983
-1.8.
Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986
-0.2.
Tax Reform Act of 1986
-8.9.....
FJ;"Spoken by the man who bans nuclear reactors and puts up windmills to replace them".
Who said I wanted to ban nuclear reactors? Ohh, that's right..you did! That funny hat you're wearing in your blog photo must be used to read minds. You might want to get a new on, cause that one don't work! lol
Thersites;"Get you head out of the weeds. You can't see the forest for all the trees...".
Somethings wrong with your link Thersites. I clicked on it expecting to see a statistical outlay supported by pertinent data, or a reputable non-partisan source supplying links to historic government fact sheets. Instead, it went to "A BLOG?" A free "do-it-yourself" Blog at that!
Hell, I can do that too and post anything I please...no matter how stupid and outrageous it might be!
All of you should read this article by Pulitzer Prize winner, David Cay Johnston. I'd think he has a lot more credibility than your buddies over at "Farmers Letters."
Hell, I can do that too and post anything I please...no matter how stupid and outrageous it might be!
The difference, however, is that the data I presented will be replicated by all competent authorities, and the data YOU presented will NOT. :)
lol!!
Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.
Geee...what are the chances that if taxes had remained the same, icomes would have STAYED at 2000 levels?
Talk about building strawman arguments. Perhaps beggars shouould wish for horses and ALL, thereafter, can RIDE!
Pullitzer's are now beeing awarded for fiction. Whodathunkit!
ps - Nice try switching your argument from the Reagan tax cuts to the Bush tax cuts. Does that mean that you have conceded that you were wrong about the Reagan cuts? Just wondering how much intellectual integrity YOU have.
Thersites;"Does that mean that you have conceded that you were wrong about the Reagan cuts? Just wondering how much intellectual integrity YOU have".
Of course I concede. I did so the moment you posted a link to "A BLOG", instead of a site showing statistical evidence compiled from direct and accurate data, and further showing the source of that data. When I clicked on it, I saw two graphs, without narrative, and no supporting evidence of how the graph was produced.
It's like, I asked you what time it was, and you told me that your watch stopped. But then you tell me, "even a stopped watch is right twice a day." But, do you really expect me to wait??? No, that's okay, here's my number, call me when you get a new watch...
As far as my "intellectual integrity" goes, my father told me something a long, long time ago about arguing with someone about politics or religion. He said;
"Never argue with a fool! Because, even a person who knows nothing about the subject you're arguing about, can't tell who's the fool...and who's not. Be that as it may, I concede the "argument" to you!
lol!
The fact that you're too lazy to do you own research on presented materials to verify and/or validate the data and need to be spoon fed from "officialista" sources ONLY DOES speak volumes as to your character, p. anthony. But then I'd expect no less from the product of an inefficient and ineffective school system, that evidently taught you these tactics for lifelong failure so that you'd never stray too far from official materials generated in their academic echo chambers.
I accept your concession, even if you don't ever doubt YOUR own sources. It's an admission that, "you are already pwned". If not by me, then someone else.
Thersite;"I accept your concession".
As expected. And in the spirit of my fathers words, you'll get no argument from me...
You're right, again! It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and again, remove ALL doubt.
"better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and again, remove ALL doubt"
Absolutely! My staying silent on the subject of politics will only allow you to "think." Whereas the real fool speaks, you leave "no doubt."
THAT was harsh, Thersites! ;)
...hey, but I do notice that p. anthony allen's gums are still flappin'.
I'm enjoying watching allen have his ass handed to him. I guess talking points are a poor substitution for facts aren't they allen? lol Of course, allen will never acknowledge the obvious.
Post a Comment
<< Home