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

[Liability]

Dems 2012:

Three Planks

1. Nothing's Obama Fault

2. We're raising your taxes

3. We hate the Rich

Three planks and the liberoidal Dims will be asking all voters to pick one and then

walk it.

 

[The T]

Alan Simpson is a tax-and-spend RINO. That's why he was selected for President's debt commission. he's the kind of Republican who is always willing to cut deals with the devil "to get things done." In other words, he's eager to sell his constituents down the river.

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

And for his own political gain. I'd accuse the asswipe of having principles, but to do that one must first stop abandoning them. He is a typical asswipe RINO that was served notice in 2010.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obama has created MORE JOBS IN LESS THAN 3 YEARS!

Obama hasn't created shit and neither did Bush, other than one big catastrophic mess.

You're all nothing but lambs to the slaughter.

 

[bripat9643]

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

Hh has always been an idiot. That's why he was selected to sit on the debt commission.

 

[Trajan]

Deficit when Bush left office: $1.2 trillion.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the CBO reported the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

PolitiFact | Axelrod claims Bush saddled Obama with a big deficit

Deficit now: $1.5 trillion.

If it's always darkest before the dawn, then President Obama and Congress are close to a deal to shrink the $1.5trillion budget deficit and raise the $14.3trillion debt ceiling.

Obama and Congress Race the Clock on Debt Limit Talks - ABC News

Note: Reducing this year's budget by 10.49% could pay off the deficit.

where did you learn math? 10% of 3.1T is 310B not 1.5T. And one does not "pay off the deficit", one pays off the "debt", if you want to bring down the deficit, stop spending more money than you take in. Further the 2009 deficit was fueled in part by the 28% increase in spending that OBAMA signed into law after he took office and has nothing to do with Bush, he vetoed it, add to that about 200B in add'l stimulak spending in 2009 and it's fairly easy to see that Obama is responsible for about 1/2 of the 2009 deficit.

Unless the deficit was $2.4 trillion in 2009, no, discretionary spending from Obama is not responsible for half of it.

As the poster above pointed out, CBO's January 2009 Budget Outlook, released a few weeks before Obama took office, reveals the sources of the huge deficit that was already in place (with ARRA, I believe the final numbers for the 2009 deficit were around $1.4 trillion):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

It's true that if you compare the year before Obama took office to the year after (when his first budget took effect), there's an almost 24% increase in discretionary spending. Yet that figure is misleading, in part because Obama's budgets used different accounting than those of his predecessor:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. [...] The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. [...]

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

The apparent increase in defense spending (now that our wars are being counted in the budget) along with State Department foreign operations accounts for an almost 18% increase in discretionary spending.

whoa, hold up,are you saying that of the 24% increase, 18% of that is on the dod's/us aids doorstep?

 

[Trajan]

Right, Green, nothing is Obama's fault. Be sure to campaign on that in 2012.

The reality is that most people have long enough memories (longer than a goldfish, say) to recall what Obama walked into. They don't need to look up old CBO budget outlooks to remember the economic conditions at the start of 2009.

But then some people do need those things. And that's fine, too.

uh huh and thank god eh? of course when nov 2012 rolls around I would not be counting on that.

and since you decided to wade into political affairs.......


and whats your over and under as it pertains to responsibility? whats the timeline where in your opinion obama now carries the burden of responsibility for the country over all? financially etc.?

 

[The T]

Right, Green, nothing is Obama's fault. Be sure to campaign on that in 2012.

The reality is that most people have long enough memories (longer than a goldfish, say) to recall what Obama walked into. They don't need to look up old CBO budget outlooks to remember the economic conditions at the start of 2009.

But then some people do need those things. And that's fine, too.

uh huh and thank god eh? of course when nov 2012 rolls around I would not be counting on that.

and since you decided to wade into political affairs.......


and whats your over and under as it pertains to responsibility? whats the timeline where in your opinion obama now carries the burden of responsibility for the country over all? financially etc.?

Obama has already addressed that timetable in the past two weeks, first when he announced that ill-advised drawdown of troops and proclaimed he was going to use that money saved for infrastructure...(Nation building at home)...and just last week when he chose to chastise the GOP for being the responsible ones.

All that meant from both speeches was that he is now on the campaign trail, and up to that point of the speeches? Everything is the fault of Bush and the GOP. Nevermind he was immacculated in January 2009.

It was also an affront, a signal for his party to prepare for a possible default and the debt ceiling not being agreed to. And when it happens? Sharpen your index fingers and point them at the GOP. The blame game. nevermind the Statists and Obama are stonewalling because they want to raise more taxes in a piss-poor economy of their making.

 

[edthecynic]

Right, Green, nothing is Obama's fault. Be sure to campaign on that in 2012.

The reality is that most people have long enough memories (longer than a goldfish, say) to recall what Obama walked into. They don't need to look up old CBO budget outlooks to remember the economic conditions at the start of 2009.

But then some people do need those things. And that's fine, too.

uh huh and thank god eh? of course when nov 2012 rolls around I would not be counting on that.

and since you decided to wade into political affairs.......


and whats your over and under as it pertains to responsibility? whats the timeline where in your opinion obama now carries the burden of responsibility for the country over all? financially etc.?

How about the same timeline CON$ use to absolve Bush of any responsibility for the housing crash by blaming it on Carter!!!

 

[edthecynic]

where did you learn math? 10% of 3.1T is 310B not 1.5T. And one does not "pay off the deficit", one pays off the "debt", if you want to bring down the deficit, stop spending more money than you take in. Further the 2009 deficit was fueled in part by the 28% increase in spending that OBAMA signed into law after he took office and has nothing to do with Bush, he vetoed it, add to that about 200B in add'l stimulak spending in 2009 and it's fairly easy to see that Obama is responsible for about 1/2 of the 2009 deficit.

Unless the deficit was $2.4 trillion in 2009, no, discretionary spending from Obama is not responsible for half of it.

As the poster above pointed out, CBO's January 2009 Budget Outlook, released a few weeks before Obama took office, reveals the sources of the huge deficit that was already in place (with ARRA, I believe the final numbers for the 2009 deficit were around $1.4 trillion):



It's true that if you compare the year before Obama took office to the year after (when his first budget took effect), there's an almost 24% increase in discretionary spending. Yet that figure is misleading, in part because Obama's budgets used different accounting than those of his predecessor:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. [...] The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. [...]

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

The apparent increase in defense spending (now that our wars are being counted in the budget) along with State Department foreign operations accounts for an almost 18% increase in discretionary spending.

whoa, hold up,are you saying that of the 24% increase, 18% of that is on the dod's/us aids doorstep?

You have to remember that over his 8 years Bush kept almost 60% of his DEFICIT spending "off budget" using a bunch of accounting gimmicks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unless the deficit was $2.4 trillion in 2009, no, discretionary spending from Obama is not responsible for half of it.

As the poster above pointed out, CBO's January 2009 Budget Outlook, released a few weeks before Obama took office, reveals the sources of the huge deficit that was already in place (with ARRA, I believe the final numbers for the 2009 deficit were around $1.4 trillion):



It's true that if you compare the year before Obama took office to the year after (when his first budget took effect), there's an almost 24% increase in discretionary spending. Yet that figure is misleading, in part because Obama's budgets used different accounting than those of his predecessor:

The apparent increase in defense spending (now that our wars are being counted in the budget) along with State Department foreign operations accounts for an almost 18% increase in discretionary spending.

whoa, hold up,are you saying that of the 24% increase, 18% of that is on the dod's/us aids doorstep?

You have to remember that over his 8 years Bush kept almost 60% of his DEFICIT spending "off budget" using a bunch of accounting gimmicks.

Deficit spending, whether on budget or off, adds to the debt.
Compare the 1/20/2001 debt to the 1/20/2009 debt and feel free to blame Bush for over spending. I do.
Then we'll compare the 1/20/2009 debt to the 1/20/2013 debt and blame Obama for over spending.

 

[Too Tall]

The more intelligent response might be to end the wars, rather than raise the taxes/

But if the masters insist on having their wars of Empire, it might be nice if the corporatocracy paid for their adventures instead of foisting the cost of them onto FUTURE generations of taxpayers

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

More here:

U.S.

 

[Steelplate]

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

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

Yep

The "FDR" Depression started before FDR was in office... but like all your history... it's revised to fit your ridiculous agenda. Herbert Hoover lowered taxes... much in the same way that Bushie did in a bad economy. In 1929... Just like in 2008, the banks got super greedy and speculated themselves into Failure.

 

[Toro]

Right, Green, nothing is Obama's fault. Be sure to campaign on that in 2012.

The reality is that most people have long enough memories (longer than a goldfish, say) to recall what Obama walked into. They don't need to look up old CBO budget outlooks to remember the economic conditions at the start of 2009.

But then some people do need those things. And that's fine, too.

The recession is definitely not Obama's fault, any more than the 2001 recession was Bush's fault. People know this. They aren't stupid.

However, people will judge Obama on how he deals with the recession. And thus far, his poll numbers on his handling of the economy have been poor.

 

[Toro]

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

Yep

The "FDR" Depression started before FDR was in office... but like all your history... it's revised to fit your ridiculous agenda. Herbert Hoover lowered taxes... much in the same way that Bushie did in a bad economy. In 1929... Just like in 2008, the banks got super greedy and speculated themselves into Failure.

The FDR "Depression?"

lol

Revisionism is expected when highly ideological people rationalize events to confirm to their own worldview.

Real GDP rose on average 6.5% a year in FDR's first two terms. Some depression!

This was twice as fast as the economy grew under Reagan!

Oh, but the Depression was FDR's fault!

 

[Kuros]

Real GDP rose on average 6.5% a year in FDR's first two terms. Some depression!

Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.

But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.

 

[Toro]

Real GDP rose on average 6.5% a year in FDR's first two terms. Some depression!

Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.

But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.

I didn't say there wasn't a Depression. I am arguing that FDR didn't cause the Depression. Pay attention.

The "FDR caused the Depression" is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in economic history, and I've read a lot of it. You can argue that FDR was over-rated, or that some of his policies hindered the recovery. But to say he "caused" it is one of the most surreal arguments I have ever heard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right, Green, nothing is Obama's fault. Be sure to campaign on that in 2012.

The reality is that most people have long enough memories (longer than a goldfish, say) to recall what Obama walked into. They don't need to look up old CBO budget outlooks to remember the economic conditions at the start of 2009.

But then some people do need those things. And that's fine, too.

I encourage you to run on the fact that Obama is a self-proclaimed powerless failure. Use all the charts and graphs you feel are necessary

Romney is the single GOP candidate who can compete with Obama, Frank, and you and your crazy ilk are trying to take him out. We are not going back to the 1950s. You run Bachmann, Perry, whoever else, and you will hand the election to the man you hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

One seat left in the lifeboat, and we give it either to Simpson or Kaz? Start swimming, Kaz.

 

[Trajan]

Real GDP rose on average 6.5% a year in FDR's first two terms. Some depression!

Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.

But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.

I didn't say there wasn't a Depression. I am arguing that FDR didn't cause the Depression. Pay attention.

The "FDR caused the Depression" is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in economic history, and I've read a lot of it. You can argue that FDR was over-rated, or that some of his policies hindered the recovery. But to say he "caused" it is one of the most surreal arguments I have ever heard.

no he didn't thats crazy...

BUT that rise in 37 that stung it out to ww2, was based solely on his fiscal policies enacted in the year 36.....its commonly called the depression within the depression.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.