Since the dems on the board like the CBO numbers so much

[Nevermind]

How much does each American household owe as their share of our federal public debt? The figures are from the Congressional Budget Office and are based on Obama's 2011 budget.

When Obama entered office, $56,000 per household.
After one year of Obama in office; $72,000 per household.
By 2020; $170,000 per household.

According to the CBO, Obama's 2011 budget will generate $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years.

Change you can believe in.

[Ugmo]

Change you can believe in.

When Obama's budget deficit owes primarily to Bush's stupid decisions, you can't really describe this as change.

Nice try at distorting (or more likely misunderstanding) the facts though. It's what you Teabaggers are best at.

[Ugmo]

By the way, you already started this thread once:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=222549&p=4634143#p4634143

This one isn't going to play out any more positively for you.

[EvilMadman]

How much does each American household owe as their share of our federal public debt? The figures are from the Congressional Budget Office and are based on Obama's 2011 budget.

When Obama entered office, $56,000 per household.
After one year of Obama in office; $72,000 per household.
By 2020; $170,000 per household.

According to the CBO, Obama's 2011 budget will generate $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years.

Change you can believe in.

The CBO projects that it will lower the deficit by over a hundred billion dollars in the coming years and a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Why is the kill the bill crowd completely ignoring that?

Uh, maybe becuase it's the equivalent of tossing a lounge chair off the Titanic?

Here's a good article...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 90-of-gdp/

Damn!

Gee, I wonder what the effect of all of these numbers will be on the nation's inflation rate? Well, whatever it is, it can't possilbly be any good.

[Ugmo]

Uh, maybe becuase it's the equivalent of tossing a lounge chair off the Titanic?

Here's a good article...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 90-of-gdp/

Damn!

Gee, I wonder what the effect of all of these numbers will be on the nation's inflation rate? Well, whatever it is, it can't possilbly be any good.

No, it reduces the deficit rather than increasing it, and is therefore deficit-neutral.

When was the last Republican president who did anything deficit-neutral? Yet Obama comes up with a bill that saves money rather than costing money, and you're bitching that it doesn't save enough. I hope you were on here during Dubya's presidency bitching about the prescription drug funding bill, the two enormous tax cuts and the Iraq War, none of which were deficit-neutral. Because otherwise you're a hypocrite.

[EvilMadman]

Change you can believe in.

When Obama's budget deficit owes primarily to Bush's stupid decisions, you can't really describe this as change.

Nice try at distorting (or more likely misunderstanding) the facts though. It's what you Teabaggers are best at.

I'm real sorry for the rise in the national debt, but it was former president Bush that made me spend 10 trillion dollars.

I somehow don't think voters are going to except that excuse.

[Ugmo]

I somehow don't think voters are going to except that excuse.

Let's hear how you'd reduce the deficit. I started a thread a few months back challenging all of our resident overnight fiscal conservatives to explain how they'd reduce the deficit when automatic spending that the president has no control over comprises more than 60 percent of the budget. I need to make this my signature or something, because the War Board's "fiscal conservatives" always ignore it, but you could eliminate all non-automatic spending and you still wouldn't balance the budget.

[EvilMadman]

Uh, maybe becuase it's the equivalent of tossing a lounge chair off the Titanic?

Here's a good article...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 90-of-gdp/

Damn!

Gee, I wonder what the effect of all of these numbers will be on the nation's inflation rate? Well, whatever it is, it can't possilbly be any good.

No, it reduces the deficit rather than increasing it, and is therefore deficit-neutral.

When was the last Republican president who did anything deficit-neutral? Yet Obama comes up with a bill that saves money rather than costing money, and you're bitching that it doesn't save enough. I hope you were on here during Dubya's presidency bitching about the prescription drug funding bill, the two enormous tax cuts and the Iraq War, none of which were deficit-neutral. Because otherwise you're a hypocrite.

"doesn't save enough"? It doesn't save ANY!

$10,000,000,000,000.00

Yes, I supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and I also generally support tax cuts.

And "tax cuts for the rich" is a total misnomer anyway.

Everyone knows that poor people barely pay any taxes, because they usually don't have any substantial income (although that probably won't stop Obama & Co. ), so it only makes sense that people with large amounts of money would be the main beneficiaries from any cuts in the tax rate. What is so damn hard for Dems to understand about that, really? And the "middle class" always end up getting screwed somehow no matter what happens.

The prescription drug benefit? I have no idea. Probably nothing more than a political handout to "Big Pharma". Hopefully it ended up helping some people. Hey, at least it didn't cost trillions of dollars!

It doesn't matter anyway, because all of the stuff Bush spent on isn't all going to add up to ten trillion dollars, NOT a chance! Bush spending in eight years doesn't even approach Obama spending in only one year!

Oh, and just Because the president before you spent government money mostly in an irresponsible manner, is not an adequate excuse to continue the trend, and in Obama's case, explode past it.

[EvilMadman]

I somehow don't think voters are going to except that excuse.

Let's hear how you'd reduce the deficit. I started a thread a few months back challenging all of our resident overnight fiscal conservatives to explain how they'd reduce the deficit when automatic spending that the president has no control over comprises more than 60 percent of the budget. I need to make this my signature or something, because the War Board's "fiscal conservatives" always ignore it, but you could eliminate all non-automatic spending and you still wouldn't balance the budget.

Hmmm. Not sure I buy it. The Democrats control the presidency, the U.S. Senate and the Congress, and you're telling me there is not a single damn thing they could do to reduce the deficit? BULLCRAP! Then how did president Clinton and a Republican controlled Congress do it?

[MickeyG]

There's no choice but to raise taxes for everyone. Yep, read my lips, I said raise taxes. Also, close all the many loopholes of the rich and corporations.

[Ugmo]

"doesn't save enough"? It doesn't save ANY!

It does.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... cut-defic/

It's getting to the point where I don't see why I should have to post these links, because this is basic fucking stuff, like you saying that Benjamin Franklin was the first president and me having to give you a wiki link to counter the complete falsehood you just posted.

Yes, I supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and I also generally support tax cuts.

And "tax cuts for the rich" is a total misnomer anyway.

Everyone knows that poor people barely pay any taxes, because they usually don't have any substantial income (although that probably won't stop Obama & Co. ), so it only makes sense that people with large amounts of money would be the main beneficiaries from any cuts in the tax rate. What is so damn hard for Dems to understand about that, really? And the "middle class" always end up getting screwed somehow no matter what happens.

That's a nice tangent you just went off on, but I can't help noticing you didn't address the fact that the wars and the tax cuts were not balanced out by a decrease in spending, and therefore ended up exploding the deficit.

The prescription drug benefit? I have no idea. Probably nothing more than a political handout to "Big Pharma". Hopefully it ended up helping some people. Hey, at least it didn't cost trillions of dollars!

Aaaaand, you're wrong again:

Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Feb8.html

It doesn't matter anyway, because all of the stuff Bush spent on isn't all going to add up to ten trillion dollars, NOT a chance! Bush spending in eight years doesn't even approach Obama spending in only one year!

Fer fuck's sake dude, do your homework!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... bt-bush-d/

You're batting 0 for 4 so far in one post. Bush added 5 trillion to the national debt.... after inheriting a surplus from Clinton:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... nder-bush/

Oh, and just Because the president before you spent government money mostly in an irresponsible manner, is not an adequate excuse to continue the trend, and in Obama's case, explode past it.

Those charts are bullshit, because as the link above explains, the 2009 budget - and therefore its deficit - was Bush's. The deficit declines significantly after that, but obviously Obama's deficits are bigger than Bush's because automatic spending - i.e. non-discretionary outlays - will keep increasing over time unless something is done to contain them.

In conclusion, your last post was terrible. You don't seem to understand half of what you're posting, and you're distorting the other half.