The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

[Forever_frost]

You didn't dispute the 47%. The number came from the irs

[Durantula]

Has this been adjusted for the wars on Iraq since 03 at 797.3 Billion and Afghanistan at 459.8 Billion since 01 equaling 1.26 Trillion dollars?

No, it hasn't. Too many people point to the massive increase in federal deficit but, probably knowingly, conveniently ignore that the Obama administration moved both war theaters back onto the budget. Bush hid those numbers by keeping them off-budget.

[Durantula]

I'm seeing "Estimates" on them. No hard numbers as you cannot tell what would have happened. So explain to me then, why under Bush and Republicans we had 4-6% unemployment and in 07 when Pelosi took over, it's been skyrocketing since

I hope, for your sake, that that's a rhetorical question.

Edit: And yeah, those "estimates" were made using CBO numbers and BLS, not numbers some dude just made up in his basement.

Edit 2: You know what, coming from the guy who said that 46% of people don't pay any taxes, you're probably asking a serious question. And to imply it has anything to do with Pelosi being Speaker instead of the economic collapse the country faced is absolutely hilarious.

[Durantula]

Businesses can't just "create" revenue at will, especially in this economic climate. You run lean and mean, hence the very reason unemployment is high.
You can't "spend" your way to prosperity, either. Credit cards come due and "No-Neck" Guido will come get your car.
This presidents' dicretionary spending has risen 84%! 84%! It's ludicrous...

I wouldn't expect anything less of you than to use a skewed number. Did you bother fact-checking the 84% before spewing it?

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/apr/01/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-discretionary-spending-20-percent/

That gives him a total of $796 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2010. And if you compare it to the $434 billion in 2008, it’s an 83.4 percent increase -- consistent with the "over 80 percent" he claimed.

But there are a few catches.

First, not everyone agrees it’s appropriate to include stimulus money in the calculation since it could be considered one-time emergency spending -- not part of the budget base. Cantor seemed to acknowledge that point by saying, "If you put the stimulus in, it’s over 80 percent."

We also wondered why Cantor counted the $257 billion in 2010. After all, the stimulus was approved in 2009.

Allen said Cantor lumped the stimulus money into fiscal 2010 because that’s the year most of it was spent. "When something passed is irrelevant," Allen said. "What matters is when it’s spent."

Several budget experts said Allen’s point is valid. So we went back to the spread sheets and encountered a problem: We found no one, including Cantor, who could produce data showing the exact yearly expenditures of non-discretionary stimulus funds.

But we did find two tables that suggest Cantor’s contention that all of the money was spent in 2010 is faulty. A 2009 analysis of the stimulus bill by the Congressional Budget Office said the discretionary money would be doled out over a number of years, with 36 percent being spent in 2010.

The CBO published an updated estimate of stimulus spending in January. It indicates that about 34 percent of the "budgetary effects" of the discretionary portion came in 2010. To assume that obligated money has been spent is incorrect.

So let’s suppose 35 percent is the actual figure. That would mean Cantor, under his formula, should have applied only $90 billion of stimulus to last year’s discretionary spending total -- not the full $257 billion.

It would mean discretionary spending, if you include the stimulus, increased 44 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration -- far shy of the "over 80 percent" Cantor claimed.

Allen disputed our calculus, saying only a tiny portion remained unspent at the end of 2010. He referred to CBO documents from earlier this year saying all but about $5 billion in discretionary stimulus money has been "obligated."

The CBO defines obligations as "a legally binding commitment by the federal government that will result in outlays, immediately or in the future."

Contrary to the claim of Cantor’s camp, the CBO documents do not prove most of the money was spent in 2010. One of the reports, in fact, says "most of the discretionary funding provided by ARRA (the stimulus) has been obligated, although outlays may occur in 2011 and later years."

[Forever_frost]

I'm seeing "Estimates" on them. No hard numbers as you cannot tell what would have happened. So explain to me then, why under Bush and Republicans we had 4-6% unemployment and in 07 when Pelosi took over, it's been skyrocketing since

[Durantula]

CAn you say that paying higher taxes would have helped the economy?

Uh, yeah.

[slow99]

fiat fiat fiat fiat fiat

[Denny]

We're fucked, no matter what party affiliation we have. Ive been so diencnchanted with this government, and sick and tired of all the fucking finger pointing and blame game. Fix the fucking problem or get out!!!

While our economy erodes away, congress is more concerned about "Pvt. Peter" and his ability to openly express his sexual preference to his c.o. and his bunk buddies. This country is so far from the America I want to live in. Fuck it, I'm out.

This is why I've decided to take more "sovereign" actions to take care of me and my own. I've recognized that bitching about politics will get nothing done, especially when the majority goes the other way.

[Baba Ganoush]

We're fucked, no matter what party affiliation we have. Ive been so diencnchanted with this government, and sick and tired of all the fucking finger pointing and blame game. Fix the fucking problem or get out!!!

While our economy erodes away, congress is more concerned about "Pvt. Peter" and his ability to openly express his sexual preference to his c.o. and his bunk buddies. This country is so far from the America I want to live in. Fuck it, I'm out.

[stevo]

Lets not all kid ourselves. Wheather they call themselves a Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference when all they care about is the highest bidder and not for the actual good of our country.

I think this ~may~ have changed a bit, since many politicians have seen lately that if they do not do what the people elected them to do they will get fucking booted out.

I want these fuckers to stick to their guns, fuck obama and his regime.

Stevo

[jw33]

Lets not all kid ourselves. Wheather they call themselves a Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference when all they care about is the highest bidder and not for the actual good of our country.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

its the conservative media's fault.... now I have heard it all.

that article is so funny I fell out of my chair.

He's still such and idiot that he actually believes that his "side" of the media doesn't do the exact same thing, in full force. Its really sad. He's so stupid that he just sits there shaking his head in agreement as they pour their laughable ridiculousness down his throat.

[Forever_frost]

Has this been adjusted for the wars on Iraq since 03 at 797.3 Billion and Afghanistan at 459.8 Billion since 01 equaling 1.26 Trillion dollars?

Right, so the 2 wars have cost 1.26 Trillion. Obama spent 1.2 Trillion his first 2 months in office with his stimulus program and how is that illegal, unconstitutional war of choice in Libya going? What's that costing us?

[564826]

One particularly popular spending cut in the name of deficit reduction is to reduce U.S. assistance to foreign countries (72% approve). A substantial 65% also supports reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as a way to reduce the deficit. This comports with the broad impression -- held by six-in-ten -- that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed greatly to the size of the current national debt, more than any other factor tested.
One particularly popular spending cut in the name of deficit reduction is to reduce U.S. assistance to foreign countries (72% approve). A substantial 65% also supports reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as a way to reduce the deficit. This comports with the broad impression -- held by six-in-ten -- that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed greatly to the size of the current national debt, more than any other factor tested.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/2017-5.png

^^I believe that this is a great way to start.^^

[Snatch Napkin]

Wow, type in "deplorably insouciant" and see how far this drivel runs across the internet.


The thing that worries me the most from this article are the slippery subliminal hints of what their plan is.

Put on your tinfoil hats, folks.....

The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion.


"Under America's elaborate separation of powers"

Sounds like they want these idiots to start thinking of our checks and balances as a flamboyantly useless pest.