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

[edthecynic]

Prove it.

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

 

[taichiliberal]

Newsflash: you pay taxes on unemployment insurance.

Come back down to reality. Nominally unemployment benefits are taxable income - but if that's your only income for the year, your tax liability is little to none. Again, what does this have to do with anything I've said?

Read this and deal:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3873458-post863.html

Again, you have a bad habit of making a statement, and then making all these "but this is what I really meant" after statements in follow-up posts. Unfortunately for you, the chronology of the posts sorts you out.

No, I'm reacting to what you write...you have a habit of making these somewhat generalized statements and assertions that leave one to draw conclusions when placing them against the context of the discussion and the information available to the general public. What you say here now somewhat contradicts your previous posts. You need to clarify your position before you post, as it will leave the reader with a better understanding of what you're actually trying to say.

All I've said here is that taxes should be raised - because we should actually be paying for the government we're getting. It's my conjecture that this would actually prompt voters to demand less government. And I find it ironic that conservatves - who claim to be about responsibility and paying our way, and claim to be about smaller government, are opposed to tax increases when our government is operating at a massive deficit.

I have to ask you at this point to reconsider your preconceived notions and take what I'm saying at face value. Not everyone here is 'left' or 'right'.

No, you originally stated that taxes should be raised on EVERYONE. All I did was point out how incorrect that assertion is given that you have a TOTALLY unequal tax system in place now that the GOP if fighting like mad to maintain. Correct those inequalities that I previously listed and you put in a hefty boost of revenue to the coffers, and the taxes of folk like you and I won't have to go up. Essentially you are echoing the exact same double talk that the neocon GOP is trying to put over on the American public.....whether you realize it or not.

 

[dblack]

No, you originally stated that taxes should be raised on EVERYONE. All I did was point out how incorrect that assertion is given that you have a TOTALLY unequal tax system in place now that the GOP if fighting like mad to maintain. Correct those inequalities that I previously listed and you put in a hefty boost of revenue to the coffers, and the taxes of folk like you and I won't have to go up. Essentially you are echoing the exact same double talk that the neocon GOP is trying to put over on the American public.....whether you realize it or not.

WTF??? I guess the only way you can have a political discussion is to paint GOP on someone and go to town. Whatever. I'm not in the GOP and I have no interest in defending them. But apparently that sort of thing is inconceivable to some.

Would it be easier for you if I just started regurgitating Glenn Beck quotes or something? You don't seem to be willing to listen to anything else.

 

[BenNatuf]

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Hey, dumbass, as has been pointed out to you over and over again, supplemental appropriations are not counted in deficit PROJECTIONS byut they are counted in final deficits numbers as they are part of the "off budget" items. Total supplemental appropriations for 2007 was 99B not 340B and no matter how many times you lie and say it was it won't change that fact.

The problem is that the supplemental appropriations process has been extended beyond unforeseen emergencies to entirely foreseeable (and foreseen) non-emergencies. Over the past several years, the most obvious example has been funding for the Iraq War, most of which has been funded, directly or indirectly, “off budget,” as the process is sometimes referred to. It has also been accomplished without offsets.

No More Supplemental Appropriations Abuse? « What After Iraq?

You stupid ass keep reading that it's not counted in budget PROJECTIONS and extrapolating that into final deficit numbers, you are quite simply wrong.

As early as mid-March, Congress is likely to begin formal consideration of the Bush
administration’s emergency supplemental appropriations funding request submitted in early
February. This request consists of funding mostly for Iraq, Afghanistan, and global war on terror military operations, as well as hurricane relief efforts, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. At just under $100 billion, it is the largest supplemental appropriations funding request ever submitted to Congress, not just for the Iraq war to date, but by any President, for any purpose.

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/supplementalbackgrounder.pdf

got it moron? Is it sinking in yet? Supplemental appropriations are counted "off budget" when figuring the fianl deficit numbers, they are not included in deficit PROJECTIONS made at the beginning of the fucking year...

what a fucking dolt.

 

[BenNatuf]

Government outlays were $2,728,686,000 + $340 billion in supplemental spending.

Prove it.

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

Once again your poor reading comprehension has let you down. It doesn't show up in the budget PROCESS including the PROJECTIONS made before it's voted on (how could it) you fucking moron, it does show up in the final deficit numbers, all spending for the year does.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Hey, dumbass, as has been pointed out to you over and over again, supplemental appropriations are not counted in deficit PROJECTIONS byut they are counted in final deficits numbers as they are part of the "off budget" items. Total supplemental appropriations for 2007 was 99B not 340B and no matter how many times you lie and say it was it won't change that fact.

The problem is that the supplemental appropriations process has been extended beyond unforeseen emergencies to entirely foreseeable (and foreseen) non-emergencies. Over the past several years, the most obvious example has been funding for the Iraq War, most of which has been funded, directly or indirectly, “off budget,” as the process is sometimes referred to. It has also been accomplished without offsets.

No More Supplemental Appropriations Abuse? « What After Iraq?

You stupid ass keep reading that it's not counted in budget PROJECTIONS and extrapolating that into final deficit numbers, you are quite simply wrong.

From your OWN God Damn link, you pathological liar!

Supplemental appropriations spending does not appear in the annual accounting of federal spending versus revenue collections, meaning it is not calculated into the federal deficit for any given year. The money is spent just like regular budgetary allocations, but when the books are closed, it does not appear as an inflationary impact on federal deficits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

Who's calling whom a moron!!! That blue box next to Ben's name, with a right pointing arrowhead, is a direct LINK to the post!!! just click on it and it takes you to the post.

If you clicked on the link I supplied it would bring you to the Ben quote that I was referencing, assclown.
Try again? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please show ONE official government report that states in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what you do from numbers 1 through 3. If you can't, then you need to get a buddy to help you deal with reality instead of your personal version of it.

In all 3 scenarios, the government collects $2,567,985,000,000.
In #1, Soc Sec (and other "Trust Funds") has a $340 billion excess for the year
In #2, no change in the "Trust Funds".
In #3, the "Trust Funds" decrease by $340 billion.
Now think for a change.

I didn't ask for an elaboration of your original supposition and conjecture, Toddy....I asked for an EXACT quote from a gov't source that "pretends" what you proport here.

You couldn't do it, that makes you a liar, Toddy.

And since Ed has several times put your oft repeating question to rest
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3873386-post848.html

You're just in denial, Toddy....and will just run in a circle with your hands over your ears and your eyes closed repeating the same mantra ad nauseum. Good luck with that.

You want a government source for my 3 different revenue scenarios? You're funny.
And stupid.
If you ever take a basic accounting course, be sure to come back.
Maybe we'll be able to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're a liar, Toddy. The link that Ed supplies here has NO SUCH EXACT QUOTE from our Benny Bumpkin that you state here. That is why Ed was able to so easily deconstruct Benny's error ridden economic myopia in appropo to my logical dismantling of Benny's blatherings.

Once again, the chronology of the posts proves what a neocon parrot and basic dishonest debater Toddy is.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

The chronology of the post will always be your undoing Toddy. YOU stated that "Ben Said"... But when one goes to the link and sees what Ben ACTUALLY SAID, it's not what YOU assert Toddy. A matter of fact, of print, of history.

When one goes to the link I provided, Ben says exactly what I claimed, because I cut and pasted it from his post, idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As your own link states, supplemental spending does not show up in the budget but does add to the debt and the debt went up 340 billion more than the budget showed.

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Moron, debt numbers don't prove what government spent.
And for the umpteenth time, why show total debt without total assets?
Unless you don't understand accounting, of course.

net debt

A standard for analyzing the degree of debt held by a company. This takes into account not just the total amount of debt that a company owes, but how much debt it has in relation to its assets.

Read more: What is net debt? definition and meaning

 

[edthecynic]

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

Who's calling whom a moron!!! That blue box next to Ben's name, with a right pointing arrowhead, is a direct LINK to the post!!! just click on it and it takes you to the post.

If you clicked on the link I supplied it would bring you to the Ben quote that I was referencing, assclown.
Try again? LOL!

Irrespective of whether you had a link to the Ben LIE you posted, you said the quote I posted of Ben's didn't have a link, and it DID.

 

[BenNatuf]

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Hey, dumbass, as has been pointed out to you over and over again, supplemental appropriations are not counted in deficit PROJECTIONS byut they are counted in final deficits numbers as they are part of the "off budget" items. Total supplemental appropriations for 2007 was 99B not 340B and no matter how many times you lie and say it was it won't change that fact.

No More Supplemental Appropriations Abuse? « What After Iraq?

You stupid ass keep reading that it's not counted in budget PROJECTIONS and extrapolating that into final deficit numbers, you are quite simply wrong.

From your OWN God Damn link, you pathological liar!

Supplemental appropriations spending does not appear in the annual accounting of federal spending versus revenue collections, meaning it is not calculated into the federal deficit for any given year. The money is spent just like regular budgetary allocations, but when the books are closed, it does not appear as an inflationary impact on federal deficits.

it's not included ON budget you fucking idiot. It is OFF BUDGET spending, and the TOTAL spent for Iraq was 99B in 2007 not 340B you fucking liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who's calling whom a moron!!! That blue box next to Ben's name, with a right pointing arrowhead, is a direct LINK to the post!!! just click on it and it takes you to the post.

If you clicked on the link I supplied it would bring you to the Ben quote that I was referencing, assclown.
Try again? LOL!

Irrespective of whether you had a link to the Ben LIE you posted,

LOL! Thanks for playing.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, it helped bring the net debt up by $160 billion.

Let me know when you find proof the government spent $2,728,686,000,000 + $340 billion.

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Moron, debt numbers don't prove what government spent.
And for the umpteenth time, why show total debt without total assets?
Unless you don't understand accounting, of course.

net debt

A standard for analyzing the degree of debt held by a company. This takes into account not just the total amount of debt that a company owes, but how much debt it has in relation to its assets.

Read more: What is net debt? definition and meaning

The total debt numbers prove how much the total assets fell short of total spending. Total debt numbers cannot be faked by accounting gimmicks like budget deficit numbers can, so only the change in total debt will give you the real true numbers for assets and spending.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, dumbass, as has been pointed out to you over and over again, supplemental appropriations are not counted in deficit PROJECTIONS byut they are counted in final deficits numbers as they are part of the "off budget" items. Total supplemental appropriations for 2007 was 99B not 340B and no matter how many times you lie and say it was it won't change that fact.

No More Supplemental Appropriations Abuse? « What After Iraq?

You stupid ass keep reading that it's not counted in budget PROJECTIONS and extrapolating that into final deficit numbers, you are quite simply wrong.

From your OWN God Damn link, you pathological liar!

Supplemental appropriations spending does not appear in the annual accounting of federal spending versus revenue collections, meaning it is not calculated into the federal deficit for any given year. The money is spent just like regular budgetary allocations, but when the books are closed, it does not appear as an inflationary impact on federal deficits.

it's not included ON budget you fucking idiot. It is OFF BUDGET spending, and the TOTAL spent for Iraq was 99B in 2007 not 340B you fucking liar.

Your OWN link says you are still lying about supplemental spending being calculated into the annual deficit as off budget spending, and Iraq was not the ONLY supplemental spending as your other link made quite clear, so you are lying yet again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted the numbers at least a half a dozen times in this thread already, don't you think you are taking this dumb act just a little too far.
Total National Debt
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

As you can clearly see the national debt rose 340 billion more than the 160 billion increase your budget deficit shows. Obviously there is 340 billion in supplemental spending that does not show up in the budget that shows up in the total debt, just as your own link said.

Moron, debt numbers don't prove what government spent.
And for the umpteenth time, why show total debt without total assets?
Unless you don't understand accounting, of course.

net debt

A standard for analyzing the degree of debt held by a company. This takes into account not just the total amount of debt that a company owes, but how much debt it has in relation to its assets.

Read more: What is net debt? definition and meaning

The total debt numbers prove how much the total assets fell short of total spending. Total debt numbers cannot be faked by accounting gimmicks like budget deficit numbers can, so only the change in total debt will give you the real true numbers for assets and spending.

Total debt numbers don't tell us anything about assets, net debt numbers do.
What were those net debt numbers again?

 

[edthecynic]

Moron, debt numbers don't prove what government spent.
And for the umpteenth time, why show total debt without total assets?
Unless you don't understand accounting, of course.

net debt

A standard for analyzing the degree of debt held by a company. This takes into account not just the total amount of debt that a company owes, but how much debt it has in relation to its assets.

Read more: What is net debt? definition and meaning

The total debt numbers prove how much the total assets fell short of total spending. Total debt numbers cannot be faked by accounting gimmicks like budget deficit numbers can, so only the change in total debt will give you the real true numbers for assets and spending.

Total debt numbers don't tell us anything about assets, net debt numbers do.
What were those net debt numbers again?

Bullshit!
Total debt numbers tell us the most impotrant thing about assets, namely how much they fell short of total spending!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The total debt numbers prove how much the total assets fell short of total spending. Total debt numbers cannot be faked by accounting gimmicks like budget deficit numbers can, so only the change in total debt will give you the real true numbers for assets and spending.

Total debt numbers don't tell us anything about assets, net debt numbers do.
What were those net debt numbers again?

Bullshit!
Total debt numbers tell us the most impotrant thing about assets, namely how much they fell short of total spending!!!

If your total debt increased by $1000 but your total assets increased by $100,000, did you have a good year or a bad year?

 

[edthecynic]

Total debt numbers don't tell us anything about assets, net debt numbers do.
What were those net debt numbers again?

Bullshit!
Total debt numbers tell us the most impotrant thing about assets, namely how much they fell short of total spending!!!

If your total debt increased by $1000 but your total assets increased by $100,000, did you have a good year or a bad year?

Good and bad are meaningless relative terms, but what can be concluded from the numbers you gave is your expenses were $101,000.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit!
Total debt numbers tell us the most impotrant thing about assets, namely how much they fell short of total spending!!!

If your total debt increased by $1000 but your total assets increased by $100,000, did you have a good year or a bad year?

Good and bad are meaningless relative terms, but what can be concluded from the numbers you gave is your expenses were $101,000.

Damn you're dense.
Debt increased by $1000 and assets increased by $100,000 means your networth increased by $99,000.
It doesn't say anything about your income or expenses.
You really shouldn't comment on anything involving math.
It's obvious you know less than even Obama.