-
-
yes. in as much as reagan, effectively, had that same power. and should have.
THE DEBT LIMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ONE PENNY OF ADDITIONAL SPENDING.
if you don't like the spending, pass lower appropriations bills. every dollar of debt we need to operate this fiscal year was passed by the republican house of representatives. along with the senate and the president.
if you want less future debt, the way to do so is to lower appropriations and/or increase revenues. dicking with the debt ceiling is just irresponsible.Comment
-
The OMB says otherwise. Fact. As for FY 2009, largely crafted while Bush was in office and the Rats had Congress, let's not forget the Ultra-Failed Stimulus.
Oh, and you're wrong about the debt ceiling. Without a budget, Obama will just keep asking for more and more money, like Bush did for the Iraq/Afghan soirée, to fund his massive entitlement programs and other reckless spending. That's why the govt needs a budget just like a family does.“If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. BushComment
-
Obama is already spending less than any president in the past 50 years. What the fuck are you going on about, dolt?
Last edited by Hardrock69; 01-12-2013, 07:13 PM.Comment
-
dude, OMB is irrelevant. it projects a deficit from the beginning of the fiscal year. if revenue collapses DURING that fiscal year, then the projection becomes meaningless. which is exactly what happened in FY 2009:
on january 7, 2009, CBO says deficit will be $1.2 trillion for FY 2009.
that was BEFORE obama took office. $1.2 trillion in deficit is bush's. and yes the stimulus (not failed, but a different, and here irrelevant, argument) added to that. by about $200 billion. but it doesn't change the FACT that the deficit was $1.2 trillion before obama took office.
as for the budget, i believe you don't quite understand how the federal budget works. since i've had a little training on it in the past, allow me to help: the federal budget resolution is meaningless. first of all, it's NOT signed by the president. it's NOT a law. it sets the spending caps for each appropriations bill for the upcoming year. it then sets a completely non-binding 5 year caps. but every subsequent budget resolution changes those caps. because they're non-binding.
now, you're right, the senate has NOT passed a budget resolution for several budgets. so? they DID pass appropriations caps for each budget year. and those 12 appropriations bills (mostly passed as omnibus bills) all passed. that's the budget. period.
the debt ceiling is not directly related to spending. if congress raised the debt ceiling to $1 quadrillion next week, it wouldn't authorize a single cent more spending. it would NOT allow obama to suddenly spend $5 trillion, or $5, on the new black panthers. any additional spending - ANY - would require an appropriations bill to be passed by congress and signed by the president.
FY 14's deficit is not actually a deficit yet. it's only a deficit IF congress passes spending bills in excess of revenue. entitlement spending is not yet more than revenue, so if you don't want a deficit next year, don't vote for approprations above revenues. bam. no problem. well, actually, that's WAY too fast, since paul ryan's budget doesn't actually balance until 2040, but that doesn't mean we couldn't technically balance next year, regardless of the debt ceiling...Comment
-
let's play a game where i ask the differences between now and the last time the nation had an actual surplus (FY2000).
if you said: way more spending, you'd be right. but you'd also need to add: way less revenue. guess what: cutting taxes, and seeing taxes as a percentage of GDP fall, doesn't help deficits.Comment
-
That was not an actual surplus...
I'm well versed in Clinton's "surplus" and it didn't exist...Comment
-
And as far as arguing taxes, it's all semantics without a productive and growing job sector...Comment
-
apparently, you're not as versed as you think.
officially, clinton had 4 straight budget surpluses: FY 1998 - FY 2001. but, i didn't say FY 2001. i said FY 2000. why? social security's surpluses are added to the total to make the deficits look smaller, or surpluses look bigger. but guess what? in FY 1999 and FY 2000, there was a surplus WITHOUT social security.
in FY 1999 it was $1.92 billion. in FY 2000 it was FY $86.42 billion. that meant that not including social security surpluses (which shouldn't be counted as revenue, since they have to be paid back), the government in FY 2000 took in $86 billion more than it paid out. that's a real surplus. period.
source: OMB - historical table 1.1 - on budget surplus/deficitComment
-
-
-
If he wants to prove it as a myth, he should provide links to GAO, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or other respectable government or private financial websites instead of some fucking lone crackpot.
But he can't.Comment
Tweet
Comment