A breakdown of who is really paying taxes

[JRK]

Sure. LOL PUB Dupes!!

Franco what is it your trying to say here? I mean I will give you credit for on of your more civil threads

 

[edthecynic]

that graph is a Washington post graph
The 700 billion added from 08 to 09 has nothing to do with 1 war (we won Iraq, its over)
Medicare part B
And if it was tax cuts then in 2007 we would have not been within 163 billion of a balnced budget

Obama walked into a night-mare that GWB did nothing to cause
We lost 700 billion in revenue and have continued down that path with BHO failed policies
700 billion in additional spending
700 billion in lost revenue
1,4 trillion dollar deficit
Has nothing to do with the GOP

I have proved that with 4- or 5 different links from a number of different sources
here we go again
07 budget
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._NHrDA&usg=AFQjCNE29uEotmNcczk4G6klOWtNpgjlEA

09 budget
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xs3tBA&usg=AFQjCNFwPJaLwpm4iayJJ5f4F_CqJ7gRKw

there is your 700 billion in additional spending
Lost jobs need no link
every-one is feeling that pain, (well most of us are)

Well, there you go again with your revisionist history. Bush's Iraq fiasco did not end in 2008 or even 2009, as you well know!!!! And the spending on the injured continues today and well into the future!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/w...for-iraq-military-handover-ceremony.html?_r=1

By THOM SHANKER, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: December 15, 2011

BAGHDAD — Almost nine years after the first American tanks began massing on the Iraq border, the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission here, closing a troubled conflict that helped reshape American politics and left a bitter legacy of anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.

The Iraq war was not an item we had a choice in, besides no-one has added up the monies we were giving the UN to babysit Iraq we do not spend any more
Let me add that 21 dems (senate) voted to use force in Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions he was ignoring

One last tid bit
the failed stimulus cost more
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...odmRBQ&usg=AFQjCNEGrsrIcEi3inkwB3_QseeMwBoyXA

Those wars was not an issue that we had a choice in, the people's will had spoken. Thats the way a republic govt works, you are in the minority

And before you go to the Bush lied path, Saddam was the only one who lied. The invasion was to enforce the resolutions that the UN had on Saddam and that he had ignored for years
after 9-11 he had no choice, he thought he did
dont recall claiming the war ended in 09 either, we did have a much more limited expense than we did in 2007 and it was over in 2011
If I made that claim, it was in error, I have no reason to lie about any of this

This is why I use links that are not opinions to support my claims

Oh bullshit! You use nothing but opinion pieces to "support" your bullshit!

Take the opinion piece that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Now I'm sure you would say that calling the stimulus a "success" is an OPINION, but how is that any less of an opinion than the non-opinion link you posted that called the stimulus a failure???????

And, of course, all CON$erviNutzi OPINION pieces are based on phony cooked numbers, again like your linked opinion piece. To make the cost of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq smaller your link makes the dishonest assumption that all spending on Iraq stops in 2010 even though there were nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq at the time.

Now of course, the spending on Iraq will not end even when every soldier is brought home because of all the continued spending on the injured, both physical and mental. Because of better training and first aid, there are many more injured soldiers than dead, 8 times as many. The continued VA care of these injured Vets will cost hundreds of billions well into the future, none of which your dishonest opinion piece counted.

So your opinion piece discounted all future Iraq war costs, but made sure to project stimulus costs into the future, 2019 in fact. CON$ can rationalize any stats to support their opinions no matter how obviously contrived they are because they know their sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and too lazy to fact check a lie they like to hear.

 

[JRK]

Well, there you go again with your revisionist history. Bush's Iraq fiasco did not end in 2008 or even 2009, as you well know!!!! And the spending on the injured continues today and well into the future!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/w...for-iraq-military-handover-ceremony.html?_r=1

By THOM SHANKER, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: December 15, 2011

BAGHDAD — Almost nine years after the first American tanks began massing on the Iraq border, the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission here, closing a troubled conflict that helped reshape American politics and left a bitter legacy of anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.

The Iraq war was not an item we had a choice in, besides no-one has added up the monies we were giving the UN to babysit Iraq we do not spend any more
Let me add that 21 dems (senate) voted to use force in Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions he was ignoring

One last tid bit
the failed stimulus cost more
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...odmRBQ&usg=AFQjCNEGrsrIcEi3inkwB3_QseeMwBoyXA

Those wars was not an issue that we had a choice in, the people's will had spoken. Thats the way a republic govt works, you are in the minority

And before you go to the Bush lied path, Saddam was the only one who lied. The invasion was to enforce the resolutions that the UN had on Saddam and that he had ignored for years
after 9-11 he had no choice, he thought he did
dont recall claiming the war ended in 09 either, we did have a much more limited expense than we did in 2007 and it was over in 2011
If I made that claim, it was in error, I have no reason to lie about any of this

This is why I use links that are not opinions to support my claims

Oh bullshit! You use nothing but opinion pieces to "support" your bullshit!

Take the opinion piece that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Now I'm sure you would say that calling the stimulus a "success" is an OPINION, but how is that any less of an opinion than the non-opinion link you posted that called the stimulus a failure???????

And, of course, all CON$erviNutzi OPINION pieces are based on phony cooked numbers, again like your linked opinion piece. To make the cost of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq smaller your link makes the dishonest assumption that all spending on Iraq stops in 2010 even though there were nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq at the time.

Now of course, the spending on Iraq will not end even when every soldier is brought home because of all the continued spending on the injured, both physical and mental. Because of better training and first aid, there are many more injured soldiers than dead, 8 times as many. The continued VA care of these injured Vets will cost hundreds of billions well into the future, none of which your dishonest opinion piece counted.

So your opinion piece discounted all future Iraq war costs, but made sure to project stimulus costs into the future, 2019 in fact. CON$ can rationalize any stats to support their opinions no matter how obviously contrived they are because they know their sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and too lazy to fact check a lie they like to hear.

No the stimulus failing is a fact
we are still millions of jobs away from were we were when Obama took office
That is not saving or creating any-thing
Job numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
TOTAL
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

That piece on the war costing less than the stimulus is an opinion?
That is the CBOs opinion
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mbyUBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2RsomyvTnim5Lp29n-5miP4cC4Q

So to care for those troops will cost how many billions? I mean really
According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
caring for those brave kids going to cost us 160 billion?
Lets add another 100 billion to get to the end
going to cost us 60 billion to care for those brave kids?
Read more: CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

Bull shit?
dude you are way out of your league
I dont plat partisan, I play facts

Getting pissed about the performance of BHO at me is a waste of time

The failed stimulus was only to re set the base line for our budget which he did in weeks in 2009
from 3 billion to 3.6
I have provided those links for you

so chill out

 

[edthecynic]

The Iraq war was not an item we had a choice in, besides no-one has added up the monies we were giving the UN to babysit Iraq we do not spend any more
Let me add that 21 dems (senate) voted to use force in Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions he was ignoring

One last tid bit
the failed stimulus cost more
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...odmRBQ&usg=AFQjCNEGrsrIcEi3inkwB3_QseeMwBoyXA

Those wars was not an issue that we had a choice in, the people's will had spoken. Thats the way a republic govt works, you are in the minority

And before you go to the Bush lied path, Saddam was the only one who lied. The invasion was to enforce the resolutions that the UN had on Saddam and that he had ignored for years
after 9-11 he had no choice, he thought he did
dont recall claiming the war ended in 09 either, we did have a much more limited expense than we did in 2007 and it was over in 2011
If I made that claim, it was in error, I have no reason to lie about any of this

This is why I use links that are not opinions to support my claims

Oh bullshit! You use nothing but opinion pieces to "support" your bullshit!

Take the opinion piece that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Now I'm sure you would say that calling the stimulus a "success" is an OPINION, but how is that any less of an opinion than the non-opinion link you posted that called the stimulus a failure???????

And, of course, all CON$erviNutzi OPINION pieces are based on phony cooked numbers, again like your linked opinion piece. To make the cost of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq smaller your link makes the dishonest assumption that all spending on Iraq stops in 2010 even though there were nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq at the time.

Now of course, the spending on Iraq will not end even when every soldier is brought home because of all the continued spending on the injured, both physical and mental. Because of better training and first aid, there are many more injured soldiers than dead, 8 times as many. The continued VA care of these injured Vets will cost hundreds of billions well into the future, none of which your dishonest opinion piece counted.

So your opinion piece discounted all future Iraq war costs, but made sure to project stimulus costs into the future, 2019 in fact. CON$ can rationalize any stats to support their opinions no matter how obviously contrived they are because they know their sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and too lazy to fact check a lie they like to hear.

No the stimulus failing is a fact
we are still millions of jobs away from were we were when Obama took office
That is not saving or creating any-thing
Job numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
TOTAL
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

That piece on the war costing less than the stimulus is an opinion?
That is the CBOs opinion
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mbyUBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2RsomyvTnim5Lp29n-5miP4cC4Q

So to care for those troops will cost how many billions? I mean really
According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
caring for those brave kids going to cost us 160 billion?
Lets add another 100 billion to get to the end
going to cost us 60 billion to care for those brave kids?
Read more: CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

Bull shit?
dude you are way out of your league
I dont plat partisan, I play facts

Getting pissed about the performance of BHO at me is a waste of time

The failed stimulus was only to re set the base line for our budget which he did in weeks in 2009
from 3 billion to 3.6
I have provided those links for you

so chill out

Yeah bullshit!

As CON$ always say about the CBO, garbage in, garbage out.
The garbage the GOP fed the CBO ended the spending on Iraq in 2010, obviously ridiculous, no medical costs, no adjustment for inflation and no interest costs for putting the war on the government's credit card, so the result can only be ridiculously low. But you knew that.

Funny thing when the same CBO you worship included those expenses they got 2.4 TRILLION for both wars of which 1.9 TRILLION was for Iraq alone!!!!!!!

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs | Reuters

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.

 

[JRK]

Oh bullshit! You use nothing but opinion pieces to "support" your bullshit!

Take the opinion piece that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Now I'm sure you would say that calling the stimulus a "success" is an OPINION, but how is that any less of an opinion than the non-opinion link you posted that called the stimulus a failure???????

And, of course, all CON$erviNutzi OPINION pieces are based on phony cooked numbers, again like your linked opinion piece. To make the cost of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq smaller your link makes the dishonest assumption that all spending on Iraq stops in 2010 even though there were nearly 50,000 troops in Iraq at the time.

Now of course, the spending on Iraq will not end even when every soldier is brought home because of all the continued spending on the injured, both physical and mental. Because of better training and first aid, there are many more injured soldiers than dead, 8 times as many. The continued VA care of these injured Vets will cost hundreds of billions well into the future, none of which your dishonest opinion piece counted.

So your opinion piece discounted all future Iraq war costs, but made sure to project stimulus costs into the future, 2019 in fact. CON$ can rationalize any stats to support their opinions no matter how obviously contrived they are because they know their sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and too lazy to fact check a lie they like to hear.

No the stimulus failing is a fact
we are still millions of jobs away from were we were when Obama took office
That is not saving or creating any-thing
Job numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
TOTAL
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

That piece on the war costing less than the stimulus is an opinion?
That is the CBOs opinion
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mbyUBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2RsomyvTnim5Lp29n-5miP4cC4Q

So to care for those troops will cost how many billions? I mean really
According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
caring for those brave kids going to cost us 160 billion?
Lets add another 100 billion to get to the end
going to cost us 60 billion to care for those brave kids?
Read more: CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

Bull shit?
dude you are way out of your league
I dont plat partisan, I play facts

Getting pissed about the performance of BHO at me is a waste of time

The failed stimulus was only to re set the base line for our budget which he did in weeks in 2009
from 3 billion to 3.6
I have provided those links for you

so chill out

Yeah bullshit!

As CON$ always say about the CBO, garbage in, garbage out.
The garbage the GOP fed the CBO ended the spending on Iraq in 2010, obviously ridiculous, no medical costs, no adjustment for inflation and no interest costs for putting the war on the government's credit card, so the result can only be ridiculously low. But you knew that.

Funny thing when the same CBO you worship included those expenses they got 2.4 TRILLION for both wars of which 1.9 TRILLION was for Iraq alone!!!!!!!

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs | Reuters

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.

actual cost less than the stimulus
Estimated long term cost will be 2 times what actual cost to date is?
The war is over in Iraq. There is no way that it will cost more after the war is over than it is when we had 150,000 troops there
NO WAY
Did you read your link?
that was on the assumption we would be there until 2017
The analysis is from is from 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The link I provided is from 2010 stating from the CBO
failed stimulus more than war, 2010, we are gone 2011

The article is spun spam, it has nothing to do with reality, nothing
In fact Obama promised to have the wars as a separate line item in the budget, that ended after 1 year. Why is that? its part of the defense budget in 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Come on dude, you can do better than that

 

[edthecynic]

No the stimulus failing is a fact
we are still millions of jobs away from were we were when Obama took office
That is not saving or creating any-thing
Job numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
TOTAL
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

That piece on the war costing less than the stimulus is an opinion?
That is the CBOs opinion
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mbyUBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2RsomyvTnim5Lp29n-5miP4cC4Q

So to care for those troops will cost how many billions? I mean really
According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
caring for those brave kids going to cost us 160 billion?
Lets add another 100 billion to get to the end
going to cost us 60 billion to care for those brave kids?
Read more: CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

Bull shit?
dude you are way out of your league
I dont plat partisan, I play facts

Getting pissed about the performance of BHO at me is a waste of time

The failed stimulus was only to re set the base line for our budget which he did in weeks in 2009
from 3 billion to 3.6
I have provided those links for you

so chill out

Yeah bullshit!

As CON$ always say about the CBO, garbage in, garbage out.
The garbage the GOP fed the CBO ended the spending on Iraq in 2010, obviously ridiculous, no medical costs, no adjustment for inflation and no interest costs for putting the war on the government's credit card, so the result can only be ridiculously low. But you knew that.

Funny thing when the same CBO you worship included those expenses they got 2.4 TRILLION for both wars of which 1.9 TRILLION was for Iraq alone!!!!!!!

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs | Reuters

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.

actual cost less than the stimulus
Estimated long term cost will be 2 times what actual cost to date is?
The war is over in Iraq. There is no way that it will cost more after the war is over than it is when we had 150,000 troops there
NO WAY
Did you read your link?
that was on the assumption we would be there until 2017
The analysis is from is from 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The link I provided is from 2010 stating from the CBO
failed stimulus more than war, 2010, we are gone 2011

The article is spun spam, it has nothing to do with reality, nothing
In fact Obama promised to have the wars as a separate line item in the budget, that ended after 1 year. Why is that? its part of the defense budget in 2010
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on dude, you can do better than that

Again, your linked opinion piece is only a PARTIAL cost of the war, not counting medical costs, interest costs and most telling no more war spending from the date of the CBO 2010 report!!! But that last very telling assumption did not come from the CBO because in the very same CBO report cited in your opinion piece the CBO projects the same limited costs used in your dishonestly low figure through to 2020, your source just dishonestly left them out. Furthermore CBO pointed out that even with the troops removes fro Iraq and Afghanistan they will still be deployed in surrounding areas and still costing money. CBO projects costs from 2011 through 2020 could be an additional $1.8 trillion. And again that 1.8 trillion does not include things like interest on that borrowed money. The only thing they adjust for is inflation. Right now approximately 51% of the spending goes to Afghanistan and 49% to Iraq.

Here is what your source left out from the CBO report:

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Other War-Related Activities

CBO’s projections of discretionary spending for the next
10 years include outlays for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and for related activities. The outlays projected
in the baseline come from budget authority provided for
those purposes in 2009 and prior years, the $164 billion
in budget authority provided for 2010, and the $1.8 tril-
lion that is assumed to be appropriated over the 2011–
2020 period (under the assumption that annual funding
is set at $164 billion plus adjustments for anticipated
inflation, in accordance with the rules governing baseline
projections).

 

[JRK]

Yeah bullshit!

As CON$ always say about the CBO, garbage in, garbage out.
The garbage the GOP fed the CBO ended the spending on Iraq in 2010, obviously ridiculous, no medical costs, no adjustment for inflation and no interest costs for putting the war on the government's credit card, so the result can only be ridiculously low. But you knew that.

Funny thing when the same CBO you worship included those expenses they got 2.4 TRILLION for both wars of which 1.9 TRILLION was for Iraq alone!!!!!!!

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs | Reuters

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.

actual cost less than the stimulus
Estimated long term cost will be 2 times what actual cost to date is?
The war is over in Iraq. There is no way that it will cost more after the war is over than it is when we had 150,000 troops there
NO WAY
Did you read your link?
that was on the assumption we would be there until 2017
The analysis is from is from 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The link I provided is from 2010 stating from the CBO
failed stimulus more than war, 2010, we are gone 2011

The article is spun spam, it has nothing to do with reality, nothing
In fact Obama promised to have the wars as a separate line item in the budget, that ended after 1 year. Why is that? its part of the defense budget in 2010
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on dude, you can do better than that

Again, your linked opinion piece is only a PARTIAL cost of the war, not counting medical costs, interest costs and most telling no more war spending from the date of the CBO 2010 report!!! But that last very telling assumption did not come from the CBO because in the very same CBO report cited in your opinion piece the CBO projects the same limited costs used in your dishonestly low figure through to 2020, your source just dishonestly left them out. Furthermore CBO pointed out that even with the troops removes fro Iraq and Afghanistan they will still be deployed in surrounding areas and still costing money. CBO projects costs from 2011 through 2020 could be an additional $1.8 trillion. And again that 1.8 trillion does not include things like interest on that borrowed money. The only thing they adjust for is inflation. Right now approximately 51% of the spending goes to Afghanistan and 49% to Iraq.

Here is what your source left out from the CBO report:

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Other War-Related Activities

CBO’s projections of discretionary spending for the next
10 years include outlays for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and for related activities. The outlays projected
in the baseline come from budget authority provided for
those purposes in 2009 and prior years, the $164 billion
in budget authority provided for 2010, and the $1.8 tril-
lion that is assumed to be appropriated over the 2011–
2020 period (under the assumption that annual funding
is set at $164 billion plus adjustments for anticipated
inflation, in accordance with the rules governing baseline
projections).

dude its 4:30 in the morning and your still trying to convince me the war In Iraq is going to cost more after the war than it did while the war is on-going

Interest on the wars is an item that is buried in a 1.5 trillion dollar per year deficit that should be gone
with out the wars GWB has a balanced budget most of his presidency. This mess were are going thru today had nothing to do with GWB
that 10 year extension I left out is because we stopped fighting in Iraq in 2010 and left in 2011
Now you can make the case that the defense spending after 2010 added to the debt (In Iraq's case) or you can make the case Medicare and SS did, or for that matter a failed stimulus
It is a constitutional mandate to defend this country
Obama care is yet TBD
and the failed stimulus is not in the constitution as a mandate to spend our wealth as collected by the federal govt to fund these items as mandated in the US constitution

This debate starts there and ends there. We spent 2.7 trillion dollars in 2007 with both wars wide open
We spent 3.5 trillion in 2010 with the Iraqi troops fighting while we gave advice and remained for the most part in the green zone

That is a 700 billion dollar addition in spending. Total war cost has nothing to do with total debt
That debt cant be tagged to a number of items, such as having 6 million fewer people putting into the till from 2007 and a loss of 700 billion dollars of revenue

Choosing were you tag that debt is a choice that the constitution clearly has our guide-lines as to where we spend that wealth

You choose the wars as did who ever it was that ask the CBO to treat defense spending as debt, and not medicare part D, Katrina, stimulus that GWB signed off on (400 billion) no child left behind etc....

I am at a point with this that your trying to use 5 year old data to justify a single year of out of control spending as it is the wars that are causing it, yet defense spending is just part of that 1 years debt as is GM, AIG, And other items such as food stamps
Jobs
Cut to 07 levels with inflation and we have a balanced budget. Deciding what programs and policies added to the debt/interest is purely political

again the defense of this country is a constitutional mandate

 

[Interpol]

This is a discussion that I feel gets crazy because of partisanship.

On one hand, I get the concern of our friends on the right when they lament that too few are paying federal income taxes as much I get the notion of the growing income inequality across our land, where the top earner now makes hundreds of times more what the lowest earner makes, when just three decades ago it was a few dozen times more than the lowest earner.

None of us can ignore that our country has been turned into a service-oriented place while the manufacturing base moved to cheaper foreign labor markets with flimsy environmental regulations that we know we could never compete against, unless of course you want for us to wage a race to the bottom.

It's time to stop complaining and to start putting political pressure on your representatives to do things to help grow the manufacturing base again in America, and some of the key components of this administration's job package are things that both sides have historically favored. So it's time to get them to start passing this stuff by piecemeal if they have to, because corporations have been starting the process of "inshoring" as of late, but it's still not a trend that is roaring and that is where our gov't can be of some use to us.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy that almost half of America doesn't pay federal income taxes, but I can't go along with the idea that it happened because the country just got lazy out of nowhere when productivity stats always show that America ranks quite high in that still. If we grow the number of jobs of people who make stuff, pay them a nice living wage, than you'll see a vibrant middle class again and more adults actually qualifying again to be at a level where they do pay federal income taxes.

I feel like when I look around me wherever my travels take me (I'm on the road a lot) I see people pretty hungry to do well and work and all that, but there really is a malaise out there because much of our economy depends on Walmart greeters and cashiers and fast food jobs and serving jobs and other jobs like that. Jobs that used to be mostly for students and retirees are now being filled out with perfectly useful adults who need somebody or something to invest in their community in real jobs that pay good wages for them to make stuff.

I think it would be great economics to do high-speed rail, for instance, and as an Independent it irks me that such a thing could be politicized.

Not everything needs to be politicized. The highway system made capitalism better 60 years ago, and so infrastructure investment aided by private-public partnerships all across this country could do wonders for us.

Threads about this stuff online are good to a point, but you really need to take the complaining and turn it into positive energy and actions that help to put pressure on your representatives to address this stuff.

Not all spending cuts are good, just as not all investment is bad, and the right balance of the two will make us prosper again.

 

[JRK]

This is a discussion that I feel gets crazy because of partisanship.

On one hand, I get the concern of our friends on the right when they lament that too few are paying federal income taxes as much I get the notion of the growing income inequality across our land, where the top earner now makes hundreds of times more what the lowest earner makes, when just three decades ago it was a few dozen times more than the lowest earner.

None of us can ignore that our country has been turned into a service-oriented place while the manufacturing base moved to cheaper foreign labor markets with flimsy environmental regulations that we know we could never compete against, unless of course you want for us to wage a race to the bottom.

It's time to stop complaining and to start putting political pressure on your representatives to do things to help grow the manufacturing base again in America, and some of the key components of this administration's job package are things that both sides have historically favored. So it's time to get them to start passing this stuff by piecemeal if they have to, because corporations have been starting the process of "inshoring" as of late, but it's still not a trend that is roaring and that is where our gov't can be of some use to us.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy that almost half of America doesn't pay federal income taxes, but I can't go along with the idea that it happened because the country just got lazy out of nowhere when productivity stats always show that America ranks quite high in that still. If we grow the number of jobs of people who make stuff, pay them a nice living wage, than you'll see a vibrant middle class again and more adults actually qualifying again to be at a level where they do pay federal income taxes.

I feel like when I look around me wherever my travels take me (I'm on the road a lot) I see people pretty hungry to do well and work and all that, but there really is a malaise out there because much of our economy depends on Walmart greeters and cashiers and fast food jobs and serving jobs and other jobs like that. Jobs that used to be mostly for students and retirees are now being filled out with perfectly useful adults who need somebody or something to invest in their community in real jobs that pay good wages for them to make stuff.

I think it would be great economics to do high-speed rail, for instance, and as an Independent it irks me that such a thing could be politicized.

Not everything needs to be politicized. The highway system made capitalism better 60 years ago, and so infrastructure investment aided by private-public partnerships all across this country could do wonders for us.

Threads about this stuff online are good to a point, but you really need to take the complaining and turn it into positive energy and actions that help to put pressure on your representatives to address this stuff.

Not all spending cuts are good, just as not all investment is bad, and the right balance of the two will make us prosper again.

Your thread was done with respect
I appreciate that

Drill baby Drill is 100% about jobs to me, not the oil
The wars could have a temporary VAT tax to fund them, I would have no issue with that. Or should I state to fund Medicare D, the defense of this country is a constitutional priority

We have increased spending by 200 billion from 2007 to 2008 and then added 500 billion and kept that level sense, it has done very little to help the job market as we are still close to 6 million jobs short of 08 levels
People who buy Apple products assembled in China do that because there cheap. We cannot stop that, the govt can do nothing to stop it
People by there goods at wall mart because it is cheap, there is nothing we can about that
(govt again)

Job creation starts here
Drill baby Drill in any state that has oil/natural gas, heavily regulated for a ZLDS (zero liquid discharge)
Allow refineries to be built in all states, heavily also heavily regulated. We have plenty of sites that would work
Nuclear power
transform from coal fired power to natural gas turbines or a combination of. tax incentives to do so saves us on our power bill
Complete revision of the tax code to include corporate tax rates being cut to match the avg of world levels (people pay taxes, corporations do not).
Those cuts could come in the form of a change from income to a fair tax type program
Extensive funding made available in training for the masses in this new and ever changing economy.
I am 52 years old and I am going back to school, I have no choice with the economy that has so little opportunity

Tax policy will work if we can ever get this economy back. I keep going back to 2007 because with the 2 wars as well as the Katrina hangover we had a balanced budget without these 3 additional cost (for edthyinc, defense spending is a constitutional mandate, stimulus is not, Medicare part D, etc...)

Housing assets falling at such a large rate has so many middle class Americans underwater which in turn means 0 home improvements/upgrades
The only way to fix this is 5% UE, 5% real UE. not a % rate lowering because of the record number of people leaving the work force

 

[candycorn]

This is a discussion that I feel gets crazy because of partisanship.

On one hand, I get the concern of our friends on the right when they lament that too few are paying federal income taxes as much I get the notion of the growing income inequality across our land, where the top earner now makes hundreds of times more what the lowest earner makes, when just three decades ago it was a few dozen times more than the lowest earner.

None of us can ignore that our country has been turned into a service-oriented place while the manufacturing base moved to cheaper foreign labor markets with flimsy environmental regulations that we know we could never compete against, unless of course you want for us to wage a race to the bottom.

It's time to stop complaining and to start putting political pressure on your representatives to do things to help grow the manufacturing base again in America, and some of the key components of this administration's job package are things that both sides have historically favored. So it's time to get them to start passing this stuff by piecemeal if they have to, because corporations have been starting the process of "inshoring" as of late, but it's still not a trend that is roaring and that is where our gov't can be of some use to us.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy that almost half of America doesn't pay federal income taxes, but I can't go along with the idea that it happened because the country just got lazy out of nowhere when productivity stats always show that America ranks quite high in that still. If we grow the number of jobs of people who make stuff, pay them a nice living wage, than you'll see a vibrant middle class again and more adults actually qualifying again to be at a level where they do pay federal income taxes.

I feel like when I look around me wherever my travels take me (I'm on the road a lot) I see people pretty hungry to do well and work and all that, but there really is a malaise out there because much of our economy depends on Walmart greeters and cashiers and fast food jobs and serving jobs and other jobs like that. Jobs that used to be mostly for students and retirees are now being filled out with perfectly useful adults who need somebody or something to invest in their community in real jobs that pay good wages for them to make stuff.

I think it would be great economics to do high-speed rail, for instance, and as an Independent it irks me that such a thing could be politicized.

Not everything needs to be politicized. The highway system made capitalism better 60 years ago, and so infrastructure investment aided by private-public partnerships all across this country could do wonders for us.

Threads about this stuff online are good to a point, but you really need to take the complaining and turn it into positive energy and actions that help to put pressure on your representatives to address this stuff.

Not all spending cuts are good, just as not all investment is bad, and the right balance of the two will make us prosper again.

Your thread was done with respect
I appreciate that

Drill baby Drill is 100% about jobs to me, not the oil
The wars could have a temporary VAT tax to fund them, I would have no issue with that. Or should I state to fund Medicare D, the defense of this country is a constitutional priority

We have increased spending by 200 billion from 2007 to 2008 and then added 500 billion and kept that level sense, it has done very little to help the job market as we are still close to 6 million jobs short of 08 levels
People who buy Apple products assembled in China do that because there cheap. We cannot stop that, the govt can do nothing to stop it
People by there goods at wall mart because it is cheap, there is nothing we can about that
(govt again)

Job creation starts here
Drill baby Drill in any state that has oil/natural gas, heavily regulated for a ZLDS (zero liquid discharge)
Allow refineries to be built in all states, heavily also heavily regulated. We have plenty of sites that would work
Nuclear power
transform from coal fired power to natural gas turbines or a combination of. tax incentives to do so saves us on our power bill
Complete revision of the tax code to include corporate tax rates being cut to match the avg of world levels (people pay taxes, corporations do not).
Those cuts could come in the form of a change from income to a fair tax type program
Extensive funding made available in training for the masses in this new and ever changing economy.
I am 52 years old and I am going back to school, I have no choice with the economy that has so little opportunity

Tax policy will work if we can ever get this economy back. I keep going back to 2007 because with the 2 wars as well as the Katrina hangover we had a balanced budget without these 3 additional cost (for edthyinc, defense spending is a constitutional mandate, stimulus is not, Medicare part D, etc...)

Housing assets falling at such a large rate has so many middle class Americans underwater which in turn means 0 home improvements/upgrades
The only way to fix this is 5% UE, 5% real UE. not a % rate lowering because of the record number of people leaving the work force

"balanced" is a fairly loose term when you put the wars off the books:

Bush's Budget Tricks - TIME

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise - The Boston Globe

Supplemental insecurity. - Slate Magazine

But at least he found WMDs right?

 

[JRK]

This is a discussion that I feel gets crazy because of partisanship.

On one hand, I get the concern of our friends on the right when they lament that too few are paying federal income taxes as much I get the notion of the growing income inequality across our land, where the top earner now makes hundreds of times more what the lowest earner makes, when just three decades ago it was a few dozen times more than the lowest earner.

None of us can ignore that our country has been turned into a service-oriented place while the manufacturing base moved to cheaper foreign labor markets with flimsy environmental regulations that we know we could never compete against, unless of course you want for us to wage a race to the bottom.

It's time to stop complaining and to start putting political pressure on your representatives to do things to help grow the manufacturing base again in America, and some of the key components of this administration's job package are things that both sides have historically favored. So it's time to get them to start passing this stuff by piecemeal if they have to, because corporations have been starting the process of "inshoring" as of late, but it's still not a trend that is roaring and that is where our gov't can be of some use to us.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy that almost half of America doesn't pay federal income taxes, but I can't go along with the idea that it happened because the country just got lazy out of nowhere when productivity stats always show that America ranks quite high in that still. If we grow the number of jobs of people who make stuff, pay them a nice living wage, than you'll see a vibrant middle class again and more adults actually qualifying again to be at a level where they do pay federal income taxes.

I feel like when I look around me wherever my travels take me (I'm on the road a lot) I see people pretty hungry to do well and work and all that, but there really is a malaise out there because much of our economy depends on Walmart greeters and cashiers and fast food jobs and serving jobs and other jobs like that. Jobs that used to be mostly for students and retirees are now being filled out with perfectly useful adults who need somebody or something to invest in their community in real jobs that pay good wages for them to make stuff.

I think it would be great economics to do high-speed rail, for instance, and as an Independent it irks me that such a thing could be politicized.

Not everything needs to be politicized. The highway system made capitalism better 60 years ago, and so infrastructure investment aided by private-public partnerships all across this country could do wonders for us.

Threads about this stuff online are good to a point, but you really need to take the complaining and turn it into positive energy and actions that help to put pressure on your representatives to address this stuff.

Not all spending cuts are good, just as not all investment is bad, and the right balance of the two will make us prosper again.

Your thread was done with respect
I appreciate that

Drill baby Drill is 100% about jobs to me, not the oil
The wars could have a temporary VAT tax to fund them, I would have no issue with that. Or should I state to fund Medicare D, the defense of this country is a constitutional priority

We have increased spending by 200 billion from 2007 to 2008 and then added 500 billion and kept that level sense, it has done very little to help the job market as we are still close to 6 million jobs short of 08 levels
People who buy Apple products assembled in China do that because there cheap. We cannot stop that, the govt can do nothing to stop it
People by there goods at wall mart because it is cheap, there is nothing we can about that
(govt again)

Job creation starts here
Drill baby Drill in any state that has oil/natural gas, heavily regulated for a ZLDS (zero liquid discharge)
Allow refineries to be built in all states, heavily also heavily regulated. We have plenty of sites that would work
Nuclear power
transform from coal fired power to natural gas turbines or a combination of. tax incentives to do so saves us on our power bill
Complete revision of the tax code to include corporate tax rates being cut to match the avg of world levels (people pay taxes, corporations do not).
Those cuts could come in the form of a change from income to a fair tax type program
Extensive funding made available in training for the masses in this new and ever changing economy.
I am 52 years old and I am going back to school, I have no choice with the economy that has so little opportunity

Tax policy will work if we can ever get this economy back. I keep going back to 2007 because with the 2 wars as well as the Katrina hangover we had a balanced budget without these 3 additional cost (for edthyinc, defense spending is a constitutional mandate, stimulus is not, Medicare part D, etc...)

Housing assets falling at such a large rate has so many middle class Americans underwater which in turn means 0 home improvements/upgrades
The only way to fix this is 5% UE, 5% real UE. not a % rate lowering because of the record number of people leaving the work force

"balanced" is a fairly loose term when you put the wars off the books:

Bush's Budget Tricks - TIME

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise - The Boston Globe

Supplemental insecurity. - Slate Magazine

But at least he found WMDs right?

CC that myth was de bunked a long time ago
In fact Obama has basically doing the same now
Here

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNG3oO7_iRHLib8nIpP6uuNZanP_TQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNHIMsJde1yvURpfgGw7cmrLeD7Qag
Also the WMD issue was lies from Saddam, no-one else

But yes there was WMDs found, just not the ones that really could have done us harm
They were part of the ones the UN could not account for, there are still 5500 missing as recorded by the Iraqi Govt (under Saddam) and never accounted for

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._pn8BA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says ... WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and

 

[candycorn]

Your thread was done with respect
I appreciate that

Drill baby Drill is 100% about jobs to me, not the oil
The wars could have a temporary VAT tax to fund them, I would have no issue with that. Or should I state to fund Medicare D, the defense of this country is a constitutional priority

We have increased spending by 200 billion from 2007 to 2008 and then added 500 billion and kept that level sense, it has done very little to help the job market as we are still close to 6 million jobs short of 08 levels
People who buy Apple products assembled in China do that because there cheap. We cannot stop that, the govt can do nothing to stop it
People by there goods at wall mart because it is cheap, there is nothing we can about that
(govt again)

Job creation starts here
Drill baby Drill in any state that has oil/natural gas, heavily regulated for a ZLDS (zero liquid discharge)
Allow refineries to be built in all states, heavily also heavily regulated. We have plenty of sites that would work
Nuclear power
transform from coal fired power to natural gas turbines or a combination of. tax incentives to do so saves us on our power bill
Complete revision of the tax code to include corporate tax rates being cut to match the avg of world levels (people pay taxes, corporations do not).
Those cuts could come in the form of a change from income to a fair tax type program
Extensive funding made available in training for the masses in this new and ever changing economy.
I am 52 years old and I am going back to school, I have no choice with the economy that has so little opportunity

Tax policy will work if we can ever get this economy back. I keep going back to 2007 because with the 2 wars as well as the Katrina hangover we had a balanced budget without these 3 additional cost (for edthyinc, defense spending is a constitutional mandate, stimulus is not, Medicare part D, etc...)

Housing assets falling at such a large rate has so many middle class Americans underwater which in turn means 0 home improvements/upgrades
The only way to fix this is 5% UE, 5% real UE. not a % rate lowering because of the record number of people leaving the work force

"balanced" is a fairly loose term when you put the wars off the books:

Bush's Budget Tricks - TIME

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise - The Boston Globe

Supplemental insecurity. - Slate Magazine

But at least he found WMDs right?

CC that myth was de bunked a long time ago
In fact Obama has basically doing the same now
Here

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNG3oO7_iRHLib8nIpP6uuNZanP_TQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNHIMsJde1yvURpfgGw7cmrLeD7Qag
Also the WMD issue was lies from Saddam, no-one else

But yes there was WMDs found, just not the ones that really could have done us harm
They were part of the ones the UN could not account for, there are still 5500 missing as recorded by the Iraqi Govt (under Saddam) and never accounted for

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._pn8BA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says ... WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and

So you're saying the supplemental budgets were not done and all of these stories are just made up. But somehow "Obama is doing the same thing now"...same thing as what?

More than ever before, you're showing what the GOP is; the party of "Yeah...but"

I know this won't be the last word...you're pathologically incapable of just admitting Bush wrecked the fiscal stability of the country by having 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. He put them in supplemental budgets so dumbfucks like you can point to the actual budget and regurgitate your flaming bullshit of "See, things were better." It's a cheap trick that only works on kool aid drinking dumbasses like you. If you could just admit it, you'd go a long way toward restoring (or more correctly--establishing) any form of credibility. But you can't do that. You're just another brain-dead dumbass that sucked the dick of their party and believe all that is ingested as a result. So much so, you claim there was WMDs found.

There were no WMDs found. Bush would tell you this you fucking idiot. You're the only one who believes this. In the realm of partisan idiots, congratulations, you've set yourself apart. You've actually become a classic in a genus--setting yourself apart through your bizarre belief that Bush soundly budgeted and found WMDs, two lies that nobody buys, will buy, or will ever believe.

I know there will be a response. It will be lies too.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Very deceptive use of language. First off, most married filers file joint returns, yet you use the term "people" to obscure that. Second, and more importantly, you use the term "taxes" instead of "income taxes". Even people making under $50K pay significant taxes. They'd include excise taxes on phone bills, tobacco, alcohol, tires, gasoline, etc..

Your kidding right?
I mean when I made 30k a year I wass so worried about my capital gains tax being to much
Those taxes you speak of are paid by all, ever bit of 100.00 a year unless you smoke and drink allot
dont blame me, I did not vote for Obama

You still tried to deceive by using the term taxes, instead of income taxes. That's crap and a lie.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Very deceptive use of language. First off, most married filers file joint returns, yet you use the term "people" to obscure that. Second, and more importantly, you use the term "taxes" instead of "income taxes". Even people making under $50K pay significant taxes. They'd include excise taxes on phone bills, tobacco, alcohol, tires, gasoline, etc..

Married people aren't people? When do you leftist fucksticks start making that argument? All we hear is that Buffet's secretary pays a lower income tax rate than Buffet.

I guarantee you... the 1%'rs pay more sales and excise taxes than folks like you who line up at Jackson Hewitt to collect your EIC checks.

Folks like me? You don't know me. Your pea brain just likes to stereotype, so your cognitive dissonant brain doesn't explode. But thanks for proving what a deceptive scumbag JRK is. You're right, the 1% probably do pay more than the 99% in excise taxes. They also pay a lower percent of their total income on excise taxes. Joe Blow buys a six pack, and not a bottle of Haute Brion.

 

[edthecynic]

actual cost less than the stimulus
Estimated long term cost will be 2 times what actual cost to date is?
The war is over in Iraq. There is no way that it will cost more after the war is over than it is when we had 150,000 troops there
NO WAY
Did you read your link?
that was on the assumption we would be there until 2017
The analysis is from is from 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The link I provided is from 2010 stating from the CBO
failed stimulus more than war, 2010, we are gone 2011

The article is spun spam, it has nothing to do with reality, nothing
In fact Obama promised to have the wars as a separate line item in the budget, that ended after 1 year. Why is that? its part of the defense budget in 2010
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on dude, you can do better than that

Again, your linked opinion piece is only a PARTIAL cost of the war, not counting medical costs, interest costs and most telling no more war spending from the date of the CBO 2010 report!!! But that last very telling assumption did not come from the CBO because in the very same CBO report cited in your opinion piece the CBO projects the same limited costs used in your dishonestly low figure through to 2020, your source just dishonestly left them out. Furthermore CBO pointed out that even with the troops removes fro Iraq and Afghanistan they will still be deployed in surrounding areas and still costing money. CBO projects costs from 2011 through 2020 could be an additional $1.8 trillion. And again that 1.8 trillion does not include things like interest on that borrowed money. The only thing they adjust for is inflation. Right now approximately 51% of the spending goes to Afghanistan and 49% to Iraq.

Here is what your source left out from the CBO report:

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Other War-Related Activities

CBO’s projections of discretionary spending for the next
10 years include outlays for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and for related activities. The outlays projected
in the baseline come from budget authority provided for
those purposes in 2009 and prior years, the $164 billion
in budget authority provided for 2010, and the $1.8 tril-
lion that is assumed to be appropriated over the 2011–
2020 period (under the assumption that annual funding
is set at $164 billion plus adjustments for anticipated
inflation, in accordance with the rules governing baseline
projections).

dude its 4:30 in the morning and your still trying to convince me the war In Iraq is going to cost more after the war than it did while the war is on-going

Interest on the wars is an item that is buried in a 1.5 trillion dollar per year deficit that should be gone
with out the wars GWB has a balanced budget most of his presidency. This mess were are going thru today had nothing to do with GWB
that 10 year extension I left out is because we stopped fighting in Iraq in 2010 and left in 2011
Now you can make the case that the defense spending after 2010 added to the debt (In Iraq's case) or you can make the case Medicare and SS did, or for that matter a failed stimulus
It is a constitutional mandate to defend this country
Obama care is yet TBD
and the failed stimulus is not in the constitution as a mandate to spend our wealth as collected by the federal govt to fund these items as mandated in the US constitution

This debate starts there and ends there. We spent 2.7 trillion dollars in 2007 with both wars wide open
We spent 3.5 trillion in 2010 with the Iraqi troops fighting while we gave advice and remained for the most part in the green zone

That is a 700 billion dollar addition in spending. Total war cost has nothing to do with total debt
That debt cant be tagged to a number of items, such as having 6 million fewer people putting into the till from 2007 and a loss of 700 billion dollars of revenue

Choosing were you tag that debt is a choice that the constitution clearly has our guide-lines as to where we spend that wealth

You choose the wars as did who ever it was that ask the CBO to treat defense spending as debt, and not medicare part D, Katrina, stimulus that GWB signed off on (400 billion) no child left behind etc....

I am at a point with this that your trying to use 5 year old data to justify a single year of out of control spending as it is the wars that are causing it, yet defense spending is just part of that 1 years debt as is GM, AIG, And other items such as food stamps
Jobs
Cut to 07 levels with inflation and we have a balanced budget. Deciding what programs and policies added to the debt/interest is purely political

again the defense of this country is a constitutional mandate

Well, there you go again with your patented dumb act so you can just repeat your debunked bullshit yet again.

As I pointed out The 1.8 trillion number came from the SAME August 2010 CBO report your source cited, it was just the part they dishonestly left out. And that bullshit about there being no more Iraq spending after 2010 because the fighting stopped, is just that BULLSHIT. Whether our soldiers are fighting or not the almost 50,000 that were there until the Dec 2011, and the noncombat trainers that are still there as well as the soldiers that have been redeployed nearby are still getting paid housed clothed and fed, all of which costs money. You are just too dishonest to admit that your source was equally dishonest in leaving them out especially when they were listed in the CBO report they cite!
Admit it, you'll feel better being honest!

 

[JRK]

"balanced" is a fairly loose term when you put the wars off the books:

Bush's Budget Tricks - TIME

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise - The Boston Globe

Supplemental insecurity. - Slate Magazine

But at least he found WMDs right?

CC that myth was de bunked a long time ago
In fact Obama has basically doing the same now
Here

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNG3oO7_iRHLib8nIpP6uuNZanP_TQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNHIMsJde1yvURpfgGw7cmrLeD7Qag
Also the WMD issue was lies from Saddam, no-one else

But yes there was WMDs found, just not the ones that really could have done us harm
They were part of the ones the UN could not account for, there are still 5500 missing as recorded by the Iraqi Govt (under Saddam) and never accounted for

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._pn8BA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says ... WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and

So you're saying the supplemental budgets were not done and all of these stories are just made up. But somehow "Obama is doing the same thing now"...same thing as what?

More than ever before, you're showing what the GOP is; the party of "Yeah...but"

I know this won't be the last word...you're pathologically incapable of just admitting Bush wrecked the fiscal stability of the country by having 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. He put them in supplemental budgets so dumbfucks like you can point to the actual budget and regurgitate your flaming bullshit of "See, things were better." It's a cheap trick that only works on kool aid drinking dumbasses like you. If you could just admit it, you'd go a long way toward restoring (or more correctly--establishing) any form of credibility. But you can't do that. You're just another brain-dead dumbass that sucked the dick of their party and believe all that is ingested as a result. So much so, you claim there was WMDs found.

There were no WMDs found. Bush would tell you this you fucking idiot. You're the only one who believes this. In the realm of partisan idiots, congratulations, you've set yourself apart. You've actually become a classic in a genus--setting yourself apart through your bizarre belief that Bush soundly budgeted and found WMDs, two lies that nobody buys, will buy, or will ever believe.

I know there will be a response. It will be lies too.

CC fucking idiot?
Because we dis agree that is your response?
All I do is supply information. You not liking that info is not my fault
GWB stated that we did not find what we had were told was there. Congress voted to enforce the UN regulations. The 2006 presentation before congress stating that there was over 500 munitions that met the criteria of WMD was to put that vote to bed.
Saddam had lied. Thsoe munitions no matter the shape were not suppose to be there.

from BHO 2011 budget
Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
Those wars were suppose to be separate line item, that is no different than what GWB did
in all reality
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CC this is just information, its not personal dude

And as far GWB balancing the budget.
I never said he did, and all I have contended is that with a GOP budget such as 2007 we had a 163 billion dollar deficit for that year
By 2009 it was 1.4 trillion
we spent 2.7 trillion in 07
we spent 3.5 trillion in 09. that was with stimulus spending added and UE going from 5% to 10% 08-09 (lost revenue
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its just information CC, chill out
Find info that disputed these facts, do your DD and stop freaking out

 

[JRK]

Again, your linked opinion piece is only a PARTIAL cost of the war, not counting medical costs, interest costs and most telling no more war spending from the date of the CBO 2010 report!!! But that last very telling assumption did not come from the CBO because in the very same CBO report cited in your opinion piece the CBO projects the same limited costs used in your dishonestly low figure through to 2020, your source just dishonestly left them out. Furthermore CBO pointed out that even with the troops removes fro Iraq and Afghanistan they will still be deployed in surrounding areas and still costing money. CBO projects costs from 2011 through 2020 could be an additional $1.8 trillion. And again that 1.8 trillion does not include things like interest on that borrowed money. The only thing they adjust for is inflation. Right now approximately 51% of the spending goes to Afghanistan and 49% to Iraq.

Here is what your source left out from the CBO report:

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Other War-Related Activities

CBO’s projections of discretionary spending for the next
10 years include outlays for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and for related activities. The outlays projected
in the baseline come from budget authority provided for
those purposes in 2009 and prior years, the $164 billion
in budget authority provided for 2010, and the $1.8 tril-
lion that is assumed to be appropriated over the 2011–
2020 period (under the assumption that annual funding
is set at $164 billion plus adjustments for anticipated
inflation, in accordance with the rules governing baseline
projections).

dude its 4:30 in the morning and your still trying to convince me the war In Iraq is going to cost more after the war than it did while the war is on-going

Interest on the wars is an item that is buried in a 1.5 trillion dollar per year deficit that should be gone
with out the wars GWB has a balanced budget most of his presidency. This mess were are going thru today had nothing to do with GWB
that 10 year extension I left out is because we stopped fighting in Iraq in 2010 and left in 2011
Now you can make the case that the defense spending after 2010 added to the debt (In Iraq's case) or you can make the case Medicare and SS did, or for that matter a failed stimulus
It is a constitutional mandate to defend this country
Obama care is yet TBD
and the failed stimulus is not in the constitution as a mandate to spend our wealth as collected by the federal govt to fund these items as mandated in the US constitution

This debate starts there and ends there. We spent 2.7 trillion dollars in 2007 with both wars wide open
We spent 3.5 trillion in 2010 with the Iraqi troops fighting while we gave advice and remained for the most part in the green zone

That is a 700 billion dollar addition in spending. Total war cost has nothing to do with total debt
That debt cant be tagged to a number of items, such as having 6 million fewer people putting into the till from 2007 and a loss of 700 billion dollars of revenue

Choosing were you tag that debt is a choice that the constitution clearly has our guide-lines as to where we spend that wealth

You choose the wars as did who ever it was that ask the CBO to treat defense spending as debt, and not medicare part D, Katrina, stimulus that GWB signed off on (400 billion) no child left behind etc....

I am at a point with this that your trying to use 5 year old data to justify a single year of out of control spending as it is the wars that are causing it, yet defense spending is just part of that 1 years debt as is GM, AIG, And other items such as food stamps
Jobs
Cut to 07 levels with inflation and we have a balanced budget. Deciding what programs and policies added to the debt/interest is purely political

again the defense of this country is a constitutional mandate

Well, there you go again with your patented dumb act so you can just repeat your debunked bullshit yet again.

As I pointed out The 1.8 trillion number came from the SAME August 2010 CBO report your source cited, it was just the part they dishonestly left out. And that bullshit about there being no more Iraq spending after 2010 because the fighting stopped, is just that BULLSHIT. Whether our soldiers are fighting or not the almost 50,000 that were there until the Dec 2011, and the noncombat trainers that are still there as well as the soldiers that have been redeployed nearby are still getting paid housed clothed and fed, all of which costs money. You are just too dishonest to admit that your source was equally dishonest in leaving them out especially when they were listed in the CBO report they cite!
Admit it, you'll feel better being honest!

You have not showed me were I lied, I supplied the link your using to claim to state I am dis honest
Those 50,000 troops? are you saying they vanish the second the war ends?

THINK
there still going to be on the payroll, we are still going to feed them
Many of us including me have contended the real cost of the 2 wars was way overblown because those volunteers would have been same where doing something with or without the wars

One last thing, no 2
CHILL OUT, its just information we dis agree on

God Bless every troop that did volunteer

 

[edthecynic]

dude its 4:30 in the morning and your still trying to convince me the war In Iraq is going to cost more after the war than it did while the war is on-going

Interest on the wars is an item that is buried in a 1.5 trillion dollar per year deficit that should be gone
with out the wars GWB has a balanced budget most of his presidency. This mess were are going thru today had nothing to do with GWB
that 10 year extension I left out is because we stopped fighting in Iraq in 2010 and left in 2011
Now you can make the case that the defense spending after 2010 added to the debt (In Iraq's case) or you can make the case Medicare and SS did, or for that matter a failed stimulus
It is a constitutional mandate to defend this country
Obama care is yet TBD
and the failed stimulus is not in the constitution as a mandate to spend our wealth as collected by the federal govt to fund these items as mandated in the US constitution

This debate starts there and ends there. We spent 2.7 trillion dollars in 2007 with both wars wide open
We spent 3.5 trillion in 2010 with the Iraqi troops fighting while we gave advice and remained for the most part in the green zone

That is a 700 billion dollar addition in spending. Total war cost has nothing to do with total debt
That debt cant be tagged to a number of items, such as having 6 million fewer people putting into the till from 2007 and a loss of 700 billion dollars of revenue

Choosing were you tag that debt is a choice that the constitution clearly has our guide-lines as to where we spend that wealth

You choose the wars as did who ever it was that ask the CBO to treat defense spending as debt, and not medicare part D, Katrina, stimulus that GWB signed off on (400 billion) no child left behind etc....

I am at a point with this that your trying to use 5 year old data to justify a single year of out of control spending as it is the wars that are causing it, yet defense spending is just part of that 1 years debt as is GM, AIG, And other items such as food stamps
Jobs
Cut to 07 levels with inflation and we have a balanced budget. Deciding what programs and policies added to the debt/interest is purely political

again the defense of this country is a constitutional mandate

Well, there you go again with your patented dumb act so you can just repeat your debunked bullshit yet again.

As I pointed out The 1.8 trillion number came from the SAME August 2010 CBO report your source cited, it was just the part they dishonestly left out. And that bullshit about there being no more Iraq spending after 2010 because the fighting stopped, is just that BULLSHIT. Whether our soldiers are fighting or not the almost 50,000 that were there until the Dec 2011, and the noncombat trainers that are still there as well as the soldiers that have been redeployed nearby are still getting paid housed clothed and fed, all of which costs money. You are just too dishonest to admit that your source was equally dishonest in leaving them out especially when they were listed in the CBO report they cite!
Admit it, you'll feel better being honest!

You have not showed me were I lied, I supplied the link your using to claim to state I am dis honest
Those 50,000 troops? are you saying they vanish the second the war ends?

THINK
there still going to be on the payroll, we are still going to feed them
Many of us including me have contended the real cost of the 2 wars was way overblown because those volunteers would have been same where doing something with or without the wars

One last thing, no 2
CHILL OUT, its just information we dis agree on

God Bless every troop that did volunteer

Still trying to milk the dumb act by now pretending YOUR position that the troops still there after the fighting stopped in 2010 no longer cost the government money is suddenly my position. YOU are the one who dishonestly stopped all Iraq war costs at the year 2010 because you said that is when the fighting stopped. Stopping all Iraq war costs at 2010 was the only way YOU could claim that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's failed Iraq War.

 

[JRK]

"balanced" is a fairly loose term when you put the wars off the books:

Bush's Budget Tricks - TIME

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise - The Boston Globe

Supplemental insecurity. - Slate Magazine

But at least he found WMDs right?

CC that myth was de bunked a long time ago
In fact Obama has basically doing the same now
Here

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNG3oO7_iRHLib8nIpP6uuNZanP_TQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7438CQ&usg=AFQjCNHIMsJde1yvURpfgGw7cmrLeD7Qag
Also the WMD issue was lies from Saddam, no-one else

But yes there was WMDs found, just not the ones that really could have done us harm
They were part of the ones the UN could not account for, there are still 5500 missing as recorded by the Iraqi Govt (under Saddam) and never accounted for

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._pn8BA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says ... WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and

So you're saying the supplemental budgets were not done and all of these stories are just made up. But somehow "Obama is doing the same thing now"...same thing as what?

More than ever before, you're showing what the GOP is; the party of "Yeah...but"

I know this won't be the last word...you're pathologically incapable of just admitting Bush wrecked the fiscal stability of the country by having 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. He put them in supplemental budgets so dumbfucks like you can point to the actual budget and regurgitate your flaming bullshit of "See, things were better." It's a cheap trick that only works on kool aid drinking dumbasses like you. If you could just admit it, you'd go a long way toward restoring (or more correctly--establishing) any form of credibility. But you can't do that. You're just another brain-dead dumbass that sucked the dick of their party and believe all that is ingested as a result. So much so, you claim there was WMDs found.

There were no WMDs found. Bush would tell you this you fucking idiot. You're the only one who believes this. In the realm of partisan idiots, congratulations, you've set yourself apart. You've actually become a classic in a genus--setting yourself apart through your bizarre belief that Bush soundly budgeted and found WMDs, two lies that nobody buys, will buy, or will ever believe.

I know there will be a response. It will be lies too.

Mt friend all you had to do was to read the thread
stop with the liberal attacks
My thread only states lets look at who is really paying taxes. and that is what we have done
chill out

 

[JRK]

Well, there you go again with your patented dumb act so you can just repeat your debunked bullshit yet again.

As I pointed out The 1.8 trillion number came from the SAME August 2010 CBO report your source cited, it was just the part they dishonestly left out. And that bullshit about there being no more Iraq spending after 2010 because the fighting stopped, is just that BULLSHIT. Whether our soldiers are fighting or not the almost 50,000 that were there until the Dec 2011, and the noncombat trainers that are still there as well as the soldiers that have been redeployed nearby are still getting paid housed clothed and fed, all of which costs money. You are just too dishonest to admit that your source was equally dishonest in leaving them out especially when they were listed in the CBO report they cite!
Admit it, you'll feel better being honest!

You have not showed me were I lied, I supplied the link your using to claim to state I am dis honest
Those 50,000 troops? are you saying they vanish the second the war ends?

THINK
there still going to be on the payroll, we are still going to feed them
Many of us including me have contended the real cost of the 2 wars was way overblown because those volunteers would have been same where doing something with or without the wars

One last thing, no 2
CHILL OUT, its just information we dis agree on

God Bless every troop that did volunteer

Still trying to milk the dumb act by now pretending YOUR position that the troops still there after the fighting stopped in 2010 no longer cost the government money is suddenly my position. YOU are the one who dishonestly stopped all Iraq war costs at the year 2010 because you said that is when the fighting stopped. Stopping all Iraq war costs at 2010 was the only way YOU could claim that the successful stimulus cost more than Bush's failed Iraq War.

I made no such claim on the stimulus
the CBO did
Successful?
hats an opinion that we dis agree
we are close to having 6 million jobs fewer today than we did in 2008

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Total
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733