Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[Steelplate]

"often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

"exalts the nation" = American exceptionalism (right wing)

"race above the individual" = American nativists and KKK (right wing)

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader = the Bush Administration (right wing)

severe economic and social regimentation = done by right wing, centrists, and left wing governments

forcible suppression of opposition = done by all governments, particularly during wartime, Patriot Act

Thus, based on the above, Hitler was a a Righty Extremist Fascist whose philosophies seem much in line with yours.

"exalts the nation" = American exceptionalism (right wing).

First true thing you've said in all the time I've know you. Conservatives value American Exceptionalism, Progressives coil at the idea like Dracula meeting the rising sun in a garlic field.

Another symptom of Fascism is the rhetoric of Nationalism and unbridled Patriotism... never questioning, always flag waving.
SYMPTOMS OF FASCISM

Now... I have a question... even removing the references to Bill O'Reilly and such... which side sounds more fascist? Just by looking at the symptoms alone... not the examples.

This is why we call you fascists. Because the signs are there and we recognize it. BTW... I just Googled "Symptoms of Fascism". Never heard of the website before this.

 

[Liability]

"often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

"exalts the nation" = American exceptionalism (right wing)

"race above the individual" = American nativists and KKK (right wing)

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader = the Bush Administration (right wing)

severe economic and social regimentation = done by right wing, centrists, and left wing governments

forcible suppression of opposition = done by all governments, particularly during wartime, Patriot Act

Thus, based on the above, Hitler was a a Righty Extremist Fascist whose philosophies seem much in line with yours.

"exalts the nation" = American exceptionalism (right wing).

First true thing you've said in all the time I've know you. Conservatives value American Exceptionalism, Progressives coil at the idea like Dracula meeting the rising sun in a garlic field.

Another symptom of Fascism is the rhetoric of Nationalism and unbridled Patriotism... never questioning, always flag waving.
SYMPTOMS OF FASCISM

Now... I have a question... even removing the references to Bill O'Reilly and such... which side sounds more fascist? Just by looking at the symptoms alone... not the examples.

This is why we call you fascists. Because the signs are there and we recognize it. BTW... I just Googled "Symptoms of Fascism". Never heard of the website before this.

You simpletons love to conflate the notions of patriotism with fascism.

Love of and respect for the better attributes of our Republic is in no way "fascist."

Liberals tend to engage in lots of irrational and fundamentally unfair hyper partisan but generally meaningless rhetoric.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

"exalts the nation" = American exceptionalism (right wing)

"race above the individual" = American nativists and KKK (right wing)

centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader = the Bush Administration (right wing)

severe economic and social regimentation = done by right wing, centrists, and left wing governments

forcible suppression of opposition = done by all governments, particularly during wartime, Patriot Act

Thus, based on the above, Hitler was a a Righty Extremist Fascist whose philosophies seem much in line with yours.

"Down grades the nation" = Obama
Robert Byrd, famous long time KKK right-wing Republican Senator.
Wait, what?
Centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader = the Obama Administration (buy health insurance or else, left wing)

Sorry honey, Fascists are just another flavor of left-wing socialist big government types.
Conservatives don't want big government, remember, we wanna push Gramma off a cliff.

You simply can't respond to the truth. Byrd, a conservative democrat, just like Thurmond, who jumped parties. Your merely use Righty Extremist Fascist code talk. The great majority of the nation is not fooled.

MarcATL an extreme leftist gave you a thank you for this extreme left post. If I was you and I had people like MarcATL thank me for a comment I would have to change my way of thinking. That is if you are not an extreme leftist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Extremist Righty Fascists like bigreb and crusaderfrank are a hoot to watch stumble, mumble, bumble, then crumble when confronted with reality.

Damn right I'm extreme compared to fuck heads like you I am what I am and do not lie about it like you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Extremist Righty Fascists like bigreb and crusaderfrank are a hoot to watch stumble, mumble, bumble, then crumble when confronted with reality.

Simple question, do you consider Obama a Failed Leader?


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." -- Barack Hussein Obama, Failed Leader

Good one use their own words to hang them with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who wants to watch old people starve... Conservatives or Progressives?

Who wants to Privatize EVERYTHING for profit... Conservatives or Progressives?

Who wants to force the Middle Class out of existence.... Conservatives or Progressives?

Who worships Corporatism, wealth and hates poor people... Conservatives or Progressives?

See... I can speak extremist retard too!

Yeah, how's that War on Poverty working out?
We've spent trillions, is poverty gone yet?

Now that we all understand that Nazis were left wingers, at least they made the high speed trains run on time. LOL!

You are wrong, so that is why we like you posting, to expose your ignorance.

Hitler was a dictator, not a socialist but a Righty Fascist Extremist dictator who cultivated Big Business, did not nationalize industry, and who kept the workers in line. He was far more your kind, toddster, than BHO.

The War on Poverty reduced it by almost half in less than four years. Yes, it was worth it.

Political Junky (Today) another extreme leftist gave you a thank you.

Trud if I was you I would rethink my vallues if I was not a laftist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Simple question Cwoosader Fwank....

Do you consider Bush to be a failed leader?

Bush and Obamush nothing has changed for the better but has gotten worse.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Extremist Righty Fascists like bigreb and crusaderfrank are a hoot to watch stumble, mumble, bumble, then crumble when confronted with reality.

Yep, they simply don't know how to deal with a WHOPPING slap of reality.

WHAPS!!!! To the face.

fUCK HEAD YOUR TO CHICKENSHIT TO ACTUALLY SLAP SOMEONE IN THE FACE,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are wrong, so that is why we like you posting, to expose your ignorance.

Hitler was a dictator, not a socialist but a Righty Fascist Extremist dictator who cultivated Big Business, did not nationalize industry, and who kept the workers in line. He was far more your kind, toddster, than BHO.

The War on Poverty reduced it by almost half in less than four years. Yes, it was worth it.

Conservatives don't want government to have that much power, liberals do.

Conservatives want smaller government, liberals want larger.

Mao, Stalin and Hitler, the ultimate big government progressives.

They were not progressives any more than you are a conservative. They were extremists, just like you, interested only in power of your fellow man.

Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Madison (in 1787) would have tarred you as a Loyalist. Rightly so.

Addendum: by your definitions, you link many of the Founders with communists. That is not only very ignorant on your part but also very anti-American. Yes, you would have been a Loyalist.

MarcATL (Yesterday), Political Junky (Today)
EXTREME OF THE EXTREME LEFTIST GIVING YOU ANOTHER THANK YOU.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our public school system correctly teachers the facts and not Righty Extremist Fascist lies.

One, Hitler destroyed the socialist wing on the party in 1934, killing almost 200 German socialists trying to ovethrow the party's conservative goals under Hitler.

Two, the Big Business corporatists allied themselves with Hitler and supported him.

Three, Hitler never even attempted nationalizing industry as a socialist would do.

Four, Hitler made sure that the workers did want Big Business wanted.

Five, that the Righty Extremist Fascists in America, such as you and Frank, try to rewrite American history and demean Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, and others in the process of trying to destroy public education.

You will continue to fail.

All Hitler did was remove the competition . Just because he may have killed 200 socialist does not change the facts that Hitler was a socialist. A dictator will kill anyone to achieve his goal of total control.

Try again sweetie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our public school system correctly teachers the facts and not Righty Extremist Fascist lies.

One, Hitler destroyed the socialist wing on the party in 1934, killing almost 200 German socialists trying to ovethrow the party's conservative goals under Hitler.

Two, the Big Business corporatists allied themselves with Hitler and supported him.

Three, Hitler never even attempted nationalizing industry as a socialist would do.

Four, Hitler made sure that the workers did want Big Business wanted.

Five, that the Righty Extremist Fascists in America, such as you and Frank, try to rewrite American history and demean Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, and others in the process of trying to destroy public education.

You will continue to fail.

Hitler didn't have to nationalize anything the people were so in love with him they free submitted all they had in the name of the motherland. Kind of reminds me of people like you in love wiuth der leader Obamush.

Do you have a picture Obamush on the ceiling above your bed?

That in itself is a lie. The "people" were not all that much in love with Hitler. They feared him and respected that he brought needed jobs to Germany. But Starkey is right. He never "Nationalized" anything. The people of industry were behind him and he had a significant sized base of loyalists. The power brokers and his loyalists forced their will on the rest of a desperate population.

You guys really don't read, do you?

Have you ever seen those video's with Hitler and the large crowds? If the Germans didn't love hitler so much why did they allow him to murder all those German Jews? And in those days a few Americans one being Joe Kennedy Really like hitler.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb is mentally damaged goods, and you are his buddy.

No, you will find nothing that proves that the German government nationalized industries.

The concept that fascism is not right wing is the big lie of the Righty Extremist Fascists, such as you, out of the mainstream of American cultural and political history.

The one who has the mental problem is the one who claims to be one thing but actually is something totally differnt then what they say they are.

 

[taichiliberal]

You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.

We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.

Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.

We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.

Spare us all this regurgitated "reaganomics on steriods" BS! The wealthy had their tax breaks and cuts FOR A DECADE....and they took their money off shore, the jobs overseas and downsized to make "record profits" for management!

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

Reality is what it is. You can make more money taking $4000 from 5 people than you can get make taking $5000 from 2.

Actually, the reality is that under the Clinton administration you had a tax system equivalent to taking $4000 from 5 people while taking 12000 from 2 people. Result was you STILL had millionaires and a budget surplus. The reality is that the folk who could afford the 12000 tax were STILL safe in their upper middle to rich income tax bracket in the end. The reality that returning to that rate won't kill anyone or destroy the country.

I understand why you don't like the math. It defeats your argument. But what's more important: pride or the economic health of this nation?

Actually, YOU don't understand the reality of recent history because it deflates the hot air rhetoric of the current neocon GOP that you seem to treat like a religious belief.

Oh, and I agree with you. War can get expensive. Which is particularly why I don't like Obama starting new wars. Especially without getting approval from Congress or giving a clear reason why we are waging war and who exactly we are supporting.

But at the same time YOU refuse to acknowledge the FACT that the two wars started under the Shrub WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET...which heavily contributed to the economic catastrophe that Obama inherited. I agree that we have no business joining NATO in this Libyan excursion, but please spare me the faux concern about Congressional protocol, as the Shrub threw that book out the window regarding Iraq and folk like you defended his actions to the hilt.

However, cutting taxes and encouraging the creation of wealth, the movement of wealth here from elsewhere, and thrift/frugality is the best way to raise tax revenues. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand it. In fact, the beautiful thing about the truth is it's simple enough for all people to understand.

Rocket scientist work on trial and error....part of the scientific method. To date, reaganomics has FAILED. 30 years of reaganomics, with a brief slow down of 8 years, and the jobs are NOT happening, the wealth has NOT "trickled down". The rich took their money off shore, downsized and outsourced and made a killing...at the expense of the American worker. So your parroting a failed policy is just insipid stubborness on your part.

I don't know why you want to chase wealthy people out of the country with high taxes, by over regulating them, and generally defaming them. We want more wealthy people to be created, stay here, and move here. That way, we have more tax revenue and the burden on EVERYONE can be lighter.

The wealthy NEVER left, kid. There still here, raking in the cash.....all they did was make sure that they didn't have to take care of/be accountable to the consumer/worker beyond a certain point. That meant downsizing, outsourcing, deregulation, monopolyzation...and as we have seen in the last 10 years, that ain't boding well for the Average Joe.

The Bush Tax cuts was originally a sunset deal....extending it is keeping serious revenue out of the coffers. A matter of history, a matter of fact whether YOU like it/acknowledge it or not.

Here's a further clarification for you:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-warns-airlines-terrorists-interested-in-putting-bombs-inside-humans-to-attack/2011/07/06/gIQAxTnV0H_story.html

 

[taichiliberal]

Still don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit do you.

We are now up to attacking SIX sovereign nations, Obama extended the dreaded Bush tax cuts, so they are now the Obama tax cuts and the cost of Part D will skyrocket as soon as Obama gets Congress to close the 'donut hole.'

The current problems are caused by excessive government spending and the collapse of the housing market. Of course, TRIPLING the number of troops in Afghanistan by Obama, costing $2 billion a WEEK on or off the books doesn't help. When the current warmonger finishes his troop draw down next year we will still have TWICE as many troops there as when Bush left office.

The only saving grace is Obama will have to honor the agreement Bush made with the Iraq government to withdraw all or most of the troops in that country.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between the debt and the deficit. I will give you a hint: One used to be measured in billions when Bush was President and is now measured in trillions and the other is a result of that one.

I love it when you neocon parrots actually think you're being clever by trying to convince everyone that you can omit data from a budget and then claim that your conclusion is valid and comprehensive.

Pay attention genius....from 2003 to 2008 the Shrub and company DID NOT include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in the national budget. That means your deficit is off and you've under stated your debt. Obama puts it on the books, and the picture becomes much more grim.

And what other three nations are we at war with? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by my count.

I'm not stating that Obama's actions haven't added to the problem, but for neocon parrots to squawk that he's somehow solely responsible for the fantastic fiscal costs of our military actions is just plain stupid.

I didn't state that extending the Shrub's tax cuts were a good thing, did I bunky? Nope, I didn't....but the neocon driven GOP threatened more filibuster and the anti-Obama punditry all swore the world would end if we didn't.

See, here's your problem toodles....on one hand you DON'T want to criticize the Shrub legacy, and you want to blame Obama for all the world's current ills, but yet you condemn Obama for continuing the very same policies that you initially refrain from criticizing.

You can't have it both ways, genius. I'll lay blame were needed, but I won't sit idle while people are trying to rewrite recent history.

hey dumbass, the wars are still off budget and off budget items count in the final deficit numbers.

I love it when you stupid assed liberals think you know something.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 1,483,563 1,516,008 -32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 1,337,815 1,655,232 -317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 1,258,472 1,796,890 -538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 1,345,369 1,913,330 -567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 1,576,135 2,069,746 -493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 1,798,487 2,232,981 -434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681 654,009 517,016 136,993
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 1,531,037 2,901,531 -1,370,494 631,687 554,682 77,005

Historical Tables | The White House

Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:

Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. “We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it can’t estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion— assuming the war would cost at least that much. “It was a policy decision” [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.

IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations


Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.

The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair


The president’s defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, “People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.”

The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes, another repeat of 2010.

For those new to USMB, Jake pretends to be a Republican.

For that to happen you'll need a good portion of people NOT voting. Given the performances of the GOP governors, the 5 clowns on the SCOTUS, and the mouthings of the Teabagger darlings in Congress, I doubt you'll have your way Frankie boy.

9% unemployment, record poverty homelessness, unemployment, foreclosures, debt and deficits.

Yeah. 2012 looks like another 75 seat asskicking of the American Marxists Party

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-75KJkJiVRo]YouTube - ‪Obama Blames ATM's For Current Unemployment‬‏[/ame]

There's no viable candidate from the "marxist party" you blithering idiot! So far it's the Democrats and the Republicans...and the Republicans ain't looking so good, since a little more than 50% of Republicans polled are AGAINST the Ryan budget proposal.

CNN Poll: Majority gives thumbs down to Ryan plan – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[taichiliberal]

We couldn't have had the FDR Depression without tax increases, increased government regulation and demonization of American free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

Revenues come from a growing economy and not punitive tax structure. Thank you for playing "What Marxists don't know about economics"

Repealing a tax cut is NOT a "punitive tax", you neocon buffoon! The original Bush tax cut for the rich was a SUNSET action.....look it up! Extending it deprives the economy of much needed revenue. REVENUE IS ALSO DERIVED FROM TAXES, genius! And to date, the recipients of the Shrub's tax cuts and breaks have NOT trickled down jobs to the general public. Whether you accept that little fact of life is of no consequence.

Thanks for demonstrating what a little dishonest coward you are Frankie...you don't have the cojones to acknowledge the FACTS: Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, and the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. But do keep ignorantly labeling anyone who can factually fault your neocon mantras as "marxist"...it's good for a laugh!

 

[taichiliberal]

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

MOST of the revenue comes from business owners and the rich....

You got a point to make?

Well toodles, if the business owners and the rich are getting tax cuts and breaks BUT NOT creating new jobs at home, then the middle class disappears and you are left with a country of haves and have nots....and a country's economy in shambles.

Got it now, bunky?

 

[taichiliberal]

You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.

We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.

Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.

We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.

Spare us all this regurgitated "reaganomics on steriods" BS! The wealthy had their tax breaks and cuts FOR A DECADE....and they took their money off shore, the jobs overseas and downsized to make "record profits" for management!

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

With all the past history of hyper spending, printing of US currency to cover borrowing against debt, bureaucracy and waste, why is it you believe the federal government should receive even MORE money?
What makes you think THIS time things will be better?

What makes you think that a continuation of reaganomics is going to save the day?

 

[Sactowndog]

Don't mess with medicare or social security. Raise the damn taxes on teh uber rich and this is a done deal. Of course republicans are against taking away tax loopholes since they hate the big corporations being hurt in any way since they are paid by lobbyists, but you dumb republican voters are actually backing them up.

Morons.

Zona- I am curiuos who is more reasonable the right or the left. Medicare has been growing at a significant rate. Without significant reform it will continue to destroy the budget. I am willing to raise taxes but are you willing to reform Medicare to get it.

 

[BenNatuf]

I love it when you neocon parrots actually think you're being clever by trying to convince everyone that you can omit data from a budget and then claim that your conclusion is valid and comprehensive.

Pay attention genius....from 2003 to 2008 the Shrub and company DID NOT include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in the national budget. That means your deficit is off and you've under stated your debt. Obama puts it on the books, and the picture becomes much more grim.

And what other three nations are we at war with? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by my count.

I'm not stating that Obama's actions haven't added to the problem, but for neocon parrots to squawk that he's somehow solely responsible for the fantastic fiscal costs of our military actions is just plain stupid.

I didn't state that extending the Shrub's tax cuts were a good thing, did I bunky? Nope, I didn't....but the neocon driven GOP threatened more filibuster and the anti-Obama punditry all swore the world would end if we didn't.

See, here's your problem toodles....on one hand you DON'T want to criticize the Shrub legacy, and you want to blame Obama for all the world's current ills, but yet you condemn Obama for continuing the very same policies that you initially refrain from criticizing.

You can't have it both ways, genius. I'll lay blame were needed, but I won't sit idle while people are trying to rewrite recent history.

hey dumbass, the wars are still off budget and off budget items count in the final deficit numbers.

I love it when you stupid assed liberals think you know something.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 1,483,563 1,516,008 -32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 1,337,815 1,655,232 -317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 1,258,472 1,796,890 -538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 1,345,369 1,913,330 -567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 1,576,135 2,069,746 -493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 1,798,487 2,232,981 -434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681 654,009 517,016 136,993
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 1,531,037 2,901,531 -1,370,494 631,687 554,682 77,005

Historical Tables | The White House

Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:

Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. “We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it can’t estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion— assuming the war would cost at least that much. “It was a policy decision” [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.

IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations


Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.

The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair


The president’s defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, “People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.”

The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.

The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.

Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.