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

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the TOTAL debt DID rise by 500 billion, so 340 billion was borrowed from somewhere in addition to the 160 billion borrowed from the public. 500 billion total was borrowed to cover a 500 billion in overspending.

What did the NET DEBT do?

There is no such thing as "net debt."

Here's some more simple accounting help for you.....


Net Debt = Short Term Debt + Long Term Debt - Cash & Cash Equivalents

Net Debt Definition

 

[taichiliberal]

Let me get this straight: you want even more spending and higher taxes?

Do you even comprehend what the "spending" actually is, or are you just parroting neocon mantras?

Remember bunky, the Obama proposal would be aimed at raising the taxes on those who could afford it, the 200 - 250K and up....and it wouldn't be uniform. Do the research, because this has all been explained before.

They must have already lowered the rate. Before it was the 250k crowd and over-- So now the 200K are the 'evil rich' too?

So let's keep punishing success while rewarding failure? That's your solution to the problem?

Do you realize that small business in this country fall into the 250K crowd--and they are also the largest employer of this country? What do you think they will do? Do you actually believe that they are going to risk it all--bust their butts--expand their business's--hire more employees--so they can launch themselves into a 39% federal tax bracket--as Barack Obama has proposed. Basically taxing the mom and pop shops like large corporations? Add to that state and local taxes--and you're wanting to tax them .50 cents on every dollar they earn.

This is your solution---

Do you realize how incredibly foolish you look when you use your ignorance of a subject as a basis for your suppositions and conjecture? All this was cleared up in 2008, but willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn clowns like you Oreo, just won't listen:

Here are the facts that essentially exposes you for the babbling neocon toadie that you are:

Little Truth to Claims About Obama’s Tax Proposal

Little Truth to Claims About Obama’s Tax Proposal | FactCheck.org



Fact Check: Obama's tax plan and small businesses

The Facts: Obama's tax plans, as stated on his Web site and as discussed by various analysts, would increase individual tax rates for the two highest tax brackets to pre-Bush administration levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent. That would apply to families with income greater than $250,000 or singles with income greater than $200,000, affecting about 2 percent of taxpayers. That tax increase - or repeal of Bush tax cuts, depending upon one's perspective - would affect a portion of small businesses because many small business owners pay their taxes through personal income tax. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire by 2011. Obama has said he would let them run out for people in the top two brackets, while giving new tax cuts to people making less.

But the number of small businesses and owners that would see a tax increase is hard to pin down because the term "small business" can be used to describe anything from an operation with hundreds of employees, to independent business people with no employees except themselves, to businesses that are little more than income-earning hobbies for their owners who also count income from other sources.

"Technically (the McCain assertion) is correct in that taxes would go up for certain categories of small businesses," said Gerald Prante, senior economist with the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington. "But it really depends on how you define small business. It's like the very rich - it's only a small percentage of people but they have a lot of money. The same is true of the number of small businesses that would be affected by Obama's highest tax rates - it's a small percentage of the total number of small businesses in the United States."


Fact Check: Obama’s tax plan and small businesses – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[taichiliberal]

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
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489

BULLSHIT!
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?

Oh he got it....he just doesn't like it. So Benny just re-invents things to suit his needs....and ignores what doesn't fit his assertions/beliefs.

The deficit in 2007 was $161 billon.
I could help you with the math, but I doubt you'd understand.

Why don't you try giving honest answers and responses to our initial exchanges on this thread, Toddy? Then when you establish credibility, we can move onto the problem of your economic myopia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh he got it....he just doesn't like it. So Benny just re-invents things to suit his needs....and ignores what doesn't fit his assertions/beliefs.

The deficit in 2007 was $161 billon.
I could help you with the math, but I doubt you'd understand.

Why don't you try giving honest answers and responses to our initial exchanges on this thread, Toddy? Then when you establish credibility, we can move onto the problem of your economic myopia.

Let me know if I can help you with simple arithmetic, your buddy doesn't seem to get it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Remember bunky, the Obama proposal would be aimed at raising the taxes on those who could afford it, the 200 - 250K and up....and it wouldn't be uniform. Do the research, because this has all been explained before.

Closest a fascist democrat has come to the truth in a long while.

Obama indeed wants to place a huge burden on those making "$200 to $250K" - realistically those making "$100 to $250K." This reveals the smoke screen of "tax the rich." Obviously, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Matt Damon and the rest of the radical left would not be real pleased with being heavily taxed - taxes are for the little people, after all. Obama is aiming at WAGE EARNERS. The truly wealthy don't earn wages, and are protected from taxation. Obama. as you pointed out, is aiming squarely at the middle class - as democrats always do.

Ahh, the Uncensored neocon asshole from 2008 strikes again!

Get a dictionary, you Uncensored imbecile, and look up the words "fascist" and "democrat"....unless your attempting to foster yet another one of your neologisms, you're probably just confused in your knee jerk hatred of anything that disproves the current neocon/teabagger driven GOP agenda.

As for your ignorance and ignorant blatherings regarding the Obama tax proposal, here's how I pablum fed it to that idiot Oreo....I suggest you take notes:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3872453-post785.html

 

[edthecynic]

What did the NET DEBT do?

There is no such thing as "net debt."

Here's some more simple accounting help for you.....


Net Debt = Short Term Debt + Long Term Debt - Cash & Cash Equivalents

Net Debt Definition

So where does it say public debt and intergovernmental holdings in that equation? Oh, that's right, you are trying to create a diversion which is why you edited my post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no such thing as "net debt."

Here's some more simple accounting help for you.....


Net Debt = Short Term Debt + Long Term Debt - Cash & Cash Equivalents

Net Debt Definition

So where does it say public debt and intergovernmental holdings in that equation? Oh, that's right, you are trying to create a diversion which is why you edited my post.

Well, debt held by the public is debt, right?

Intragovernmental holdings are bonds held in the Trust Funds, right?

 

[edthecynic]

What did the NET DEBT do?

There is no such thing as "net debt." That is just a category you made up, so it will do whatever you want it to, but it is completely meaningless. There is total debt which is broken up into two DEBT categories neither of which is called "net debt."

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt Held by the Public * Intragovernmental Holdings * Total Public Debt Outstanding

Didn't make it up.
Found it here.

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

It's the same number as Debt Held by the Public.
Because that's what net debt is.

From your link:

Notes on the Debt/Saving Clocks: $4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no such thing as "net debt." That is just a category you made up, so it will do whatever you want it to, but it is completely meaningless. There is total debt which is broken up into two DEBT categories neither of which is called "net debt."

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt Held by the Public * Intragovernmental Holdings * Total Public Debt Outstanding

Didn't make it up.
Found it here.

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

It's the same number as Debt Held by the Public.
Because that's what net debt is.

From your link:

Notes on the Debt/Saving Clocks: $4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military.

Yup, 4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's some more simple accounting help for you.....


Net Debt = Short Term Debt + Long Term Debt - Cash & Cash Equivalents

Net Debt Definition

So where does it say public debt and intergovernmental holdings in that equation? Oh, that's right, you are trying to create a diversion which is why you edited my post.

Well, debt held by the public is debt, right?

Intragovernmental holdings are bonds held in the Trust Funds, right?

Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So where does it say public debt and intergovernmental holdings in that equation? Oh, that's right, you are trying to create a diversion which is why you edited my post.

Well, debt held by the public is debt, right?

Intragovernmental holdings are bonds held in the Trust Funds, right?

Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military."

Yes, Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

 

[taichiliberal]

A proven track record of outsourcing, downsizing, two "stimulus checks" that failed, two wars who's true cost were kept off budget, a perscription drug plan with NO viable way to pay for it, and a cumulation in 2009 of serious unemployment.

I understand that you don't comprehend the terms you use - Huffingpo puts them up, you repeat them. Translation: our Uncensored asshole cannot logically or factually disprove the facts contained in my previous response, so like a petulant child he just bluffs and blusters.

"Outsourcing" doesn't mean what you think it does. If I make pencils, and I contract with my next door neighbor to make the erasers for them, I have "outsourced."

And when you FIRE employees that produced a certain product and then HIGHER employees IN ANOTHER COUNTRY to do the SAME WORK without having to pay a decent wage or adhere to decent working conditions or hours or benefits, THAT'S ALSO CALLED OUTSOURCING. Got that, genius?

You also don't seem to grasp that George Bush was not president during the 80's and 90's - I understand, Huffingglue said they are all enemies - you make no distinction.

Ever here of George H. Bush, genius? He's the father of G.W.....he was the VP for Reagan, and then a one term president. He was right there in the mix of reaganomics.....Slick Willy barely put a stop gap on it, and the Shrub just put it on steriods. Once again, the Uncensored asshole from 2008 displays his GROSS ignorance.

And the BEST you have is the latest ATF failed sting operation....and you couldn't even be honest about that by adding some BS about stimulus funding. You're one Uncensored asshole from 2008 all right.

What we have is an attempt by the administration to attack civil liberties by promoting crime. The plan is pretty obvious, supply guns from Arizona dealers to the drug cartels, find those guns at a Tuscon (or similar) shoot out, use the party media to hype the fuck out of the manufactured fact that Arizona is costing lives with lax gun laws - have Obama SAVE the day by instituting draconian measures to curtail the 2nd amendment.

The problem is, that Obama is a bumbling oaf. Instead of framing Arizona, he got caught. Holder is completely exposed, no ducking out of it. You may be able to cover Obama's involvement, you may not. He WAS involved, of course - but as long as Holder will shoulder all the blame, Obama could escape.


Either way, the Obama justice department directly cost the life of an ICE agent by violating federal law and supplying known criminal organizations with weapons. Understand, this is a CRIMINAL act, if the law were applied to all, Holder would go to prison. (As part of the Aristocracy, he will not.)

Mexico has issued an arrest warrant for Eric Holder - not that it has any real weight, but you thinking that you can sweep this under the rug is foolish.

The Uncensored asshole from 2008 has a bad habit of mixing half truths with his opinion, supposition and conjecture and then trying to pass it off as bonafide fact. Bottom line: you have the ATF trying to run a sting operation on guns funneled to Mexican drug cartels....and they screwed it up royally (resulting in the death of a USA police officer), and are on the hot seat for it. Now gunners, teabaggers, oathers, threepers, liberatarian lunkheads and neocons with a "hate Obama" jones are having an orgasm of exaggerations and fabrications surrounding the subject. Personally, I'm waiting for the outcome of the congressional investigation for the FACTS...which so far looks like some heads are going to roll at the ATF.



Now, that being said...recent events seem to give credence to Alan Simpsons charges, as the neocons and the teabaggers are butting heads, giving Obama the advantage necessary to demonstrate to the public how full of it the GOP actually is regarding the national debt.

 

[edthecynic]

Didn't make it up.
Found it here.

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

It's the same number as Debt Held by the Public.
Because that's what net debt is.

From your link:

Notes on the Debt/Saving Clocks: $4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military.

Yup, 4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending. There was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 and 340 billion was borrowed from IGHs and 160 billion from the public to cover that deficit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From your link:

Yup, 4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending. There was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 and 340 billion was borrowed from IGHs and 160 billion from the public to cover that deficit.

"And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending"

Yes, the government has spent the trust fund excess for decades.
They couldn't do that if we privatized Social Security.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, debt held by the public is debt, right?

Intragovernmental holdings are bonds held in the Trust Funds, right?

Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military."

Yes, Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And the money is owed because it was borrowed to cover deficit spending.

 

[edthecynic]

Yup, 4.5 trillion of the debt is owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending. There was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 and 340 billion was borrowed from IGHs and 160 billion from the public to cover that deficit.

"And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending"

Yes, the government has spent the trust fund excess for decades.
They couldn't do that if we privatized Social Security.

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military."

Yes, Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And the money is owed because it was borrowed to cover deficit spending.

The government takes all the revenue and subtracts all the outlays.
They borrow the shortfall.
Some of the revenue is from Soc Sec.
Same as it ever was.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending. There was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 and 340 billion was borrowed from IGHs and 160 billion from the public to cover that deficit.

"And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending"

Yes, the government has spent the trust fund excess for decades.
They couldn't do that if we privatized Social Security.

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

If you had your own private account where you could buy equities or corporate bonds, the government couldn't take your contributions to fund their wasteful spending.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

And as you can see, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the wheels come off Benny's little neocon propaganda wagon.

Benny hangs onto his little chart by IGNORING what the articles point how...being how the Shrub and company kept the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the books.

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.

Somebody needs to clue Benny in... "off budget" spending is just that.....and when you INCLUDE THAT SPENDING IN IT'S PROPER SLOT, YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN BUDGET SPENDING. The Shrub DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE COSTS OF THE WARS IN THE STANDARD "OFF BUDGET" SPENDING, as the links I provided pointed out.
Benny ignores this, then like a good little neocon toadie just regurgitates the propaganda.

and once again you only prove what a complete dumbass you are. Nowhere does this article say that emergency suplementals are not included in off budget numbers, it says dumbass, that it's not subject to the same scrutiny and caps you'd have in the normal (on budget) process.

Let me know when you grow a brain.

Thanks for proving my point, Benny boy, because all one has to do is READ the article to understand that it CLEARLY demonstrates that "emergency funding" is NOT part of the regular budget process. If something is NOT subject to the SAME scrutiny and caps as the REGULAR budget items, then how in the world can someone conclude that this particular "emergency funding" magically shows up in the regular accounting for a specific purpose, like say war expenditures? ONLY when someone PURPOSELY goes over the books and PROPERLY places ALL funding that was used for war expenditures does one get a proper picture....as the Obama administration has done, because last time I checked, the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT being labled under "emergency funding" on any level.

This is the convoluted logic that neocon boot lickers like Benny try to put over on people to protect the deceitful actions of their neocon political leadership. But no matter how many times they repeat their mantras ad nauseum, the facts and logic derived from critical analysis of ALL available information will ALWAYS expose the boneheaded blatherings of jokers like Benny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund. Employees and Employers have have contributed $2.5 trillion and loaned it to the federal government's general fund, because our income taxes cannot cover the cost of general government services -- mostly the military."

Yes, Intergovernmental holdings are the "$4.5 trillion of the debt owed to trust funds like the Social Security trust fund.

And the money is owed because it was borrowed to cover deficit spending.

If the government didn't spend more than they take in, they wouldn't have to borrow from anyone.