President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Seven Wishes2]

Dan, the semantics of that poll are why it's been proven time and again that Rasmussen, as I've provided links to prove before, is the least realiable polling service on a national level.

The phrasing of the question (which I addressed on the previous page) is the issue. Only 34% believe that the expiration of the Bush cuts ALONE should be the approach to reducing the deficit. 55% believe that a combination of letting the cuts expire AND reducing spending is the best way. Every other poll, which asks more direct and simple questions, puts the percentage of people who favor letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire in the 70's.

[Saint John]

Dan, the semantics of that poll are why it's been proven time and again that Rasmussen, as I've provided links to prove before, is the least realiable polling service on a national level.

Like what ... being the second most accurate in the last presidential election (almost down to the exact electoral college total), being the first to call the Scott Brown win, or being used by virtually every media outlet other than MSNBC? Rasmussen is cited by virtually every news agency.

Every other poll, which asks more direct and simple questions, puts the percentage of people who favor letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire in the 70's.

With all due respect, and you know I respect you, who are you or anyone else to define "wealthy?" And why should the people that pay more than their fair share of taxes be burdened one cent more? The money is all there, but no one wants to cut entitlements. Quit fucking with the people that pay MILLIONS into the system and start taking away from those that do nothing. Or, and I hate to say this but it's only fair, raise the taxes on the middle class. The upper income earners pay their fair share, the bottom has nothing to pay FROM, and that only leaves one class left. But you'll never see this because people vote in polls out of self-interest, rather than for what is right. That's why I say fuck polls, in general. Here, try polling America and see what the percentage of people is that want the government to send them a million dollars. Get back to me with just how many people would ignorantly or purposely choose bankrupting the country rather than saying "No thanks." Polls are garbage and our elected officials need to do what's right here and end funding for virtually all entitlements. As I've said before, I'd much rather pay more than see the upper income earners get stripped of what is rightfully and legally theirs.

[lights1961]

if you agree with the taxation pies out there... the wealthy make up of about 85%-90% of the tax payouts EVERY YEAR... the middle class makes up the rest...the poor who get the govt assistance pays nothing? hmmm. he who lives off govt assistance should pay something... just saying...

just as I am happy that in WI now the teachers have to pay something to their retirment plans...to help pay for their retirment, just like the rest of us... if you really want fair... that should be how it is...



Rick

[Saint John]

if you agree with the taxation pies out there... the wealthy make up of about 85%-90% of the tax payouts EVERY YEAR... the middle class makes up the rest...the poor who get the govt assistance pays nothing? hmmm. he who lives off govt assistance should pay something... just saying...

just as I am happy that in WI now the teachers have to pay something to their retirment plans...to help pay for their retirment, just like the rest of us... if you really want fair... that should be how it is...



Rick

Agreed!

[Seven Wishes2]

Both parties are responsible for outsourcing and the stagnation of the average middle class income. Combine that with high oil and commodity prices, and you're in a situation where there IS no economy without incentivizing the middle class with lower taxation. If the middle class, which constitutes about 80% of the American population, has no purchasing power, whether you're a demand- or supply-sider, the recipe is disaster. There's just not enough money to be made for a lot of people to increase their rate of taxation.

Besides, the average millionaire winds up paying just 18%.

[lights1961]

Both parties are responsible for outsourcing and the stagnation of the average middle class income. Combine that with high oil and commodity prices, and you're in a situation where there IS no economy without incentivizing the middle class with lower taxation. If the middle class, which constitutes about 80% of the American population, has no purchasing power, whether you're a demand- or supply-sider, the recipe is disaster. There's just not enough money to be made for a lot of people to increase their rate of taxation.

Besides, the average millionaire winds up paying just 18%.

I love his generalazation... are you a millionaire 7? or just a jealous thousandaire... how do you know how much the millionaire pays...have you asked him, or just read and heard about it on NPR and read it in the national liberal media guide book (called text books) ... just saying...

R

[RedWingFan]

just as I am happy that in WI now the teachers have to pay something to their retirment plans...to help pay for their retirment, just like the rest of us... if you really want fair... that should be how it is...

Rick

Agreed!

http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyor ... to_pay_off

"This is a disaster," Mark Miller, the Wisconsin Senate Democratic leader, said in February after Republican Gov. Scott Walker proposed a budget bill that would curtail the collective-bargaining powers of some public employees. Miller predicted catastrophe if the bill were to become law -- a charge repeated thousands of times by his fellow Democrats, union officials and protesters in the streets.

Now the bill is law, and we have some early evidence of how it is working. And for one beleaguered Wisconsin school district, it's a godsend, not a disaster.

The Kaukauna Area School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect at 12:01 a.m. June 29, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health-insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now they'll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions. The changes will save the school board an estimated $1.2 million this year, according to board president Todd Arnoldussen.

Of course, Wisconsin unions had offered to make benefit concessions during the budget fight. Wouldn't Kaukauna's money problems have been solved if Walker had just accepted those concessions and not demanded cutbacks in collective-bargaining powers?

"The monetary part of it is not the entire issue," says Arnoldussen, a political independent who won a spot on the board in a nonpartisan election. Indeed, some of the most important improvements in Kaukauna's outlook are because of the new limits on collective bargaining.

In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health-insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective-bargaining agreement that we could negotiate only with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can negotiate with only one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums

.

[Seven Wishes2]

Both parties are responsible for outsourcing and the stagnation of the average middle class income. Combine that with high oil and commodity prices, and you're in a situation where there IS no economy without incentivizing the middle class with lower taxation. If the middle class, which constitutes about 80% of the American population, has no purchasing power, whether you're a demand- or supply-sider, the recipe is disaster. There's just not enough money to be made for a lot of people to increase their rate of taxation.

Besides, the average millionaire winds up paying just 18%.

I love his generalazation... are you a millionaire 7? or just a jealous thousandaire... how do you know how much the millionaire pays...have you asked him, or just read and heard about it on NPR and read it in the national liberal media guide book (called text books) ... just saying...

R

Okay, dittohead...I do very well for myself, thank you very much. It's really none of your business, but between the side business I built from the ground up and my studio, it's well over $100,000 a year. So fucking what? I went through almost a quarter million dollars on therapies and testing for my son, whose condition was not covered by my insurance company...hence my belief in a single-payor option healthcare system for people with "pre-existing" conditions. Again, none of your business.

So, what do you make, old man? Hmmm?

[Seven Wishes2]

So, the richest 10% of Americans pay 40% of the total taxes...but they control 92% of the total wealth.

Do you people not understand that supply-side theory has been proven an absolute failure? It's all about demand-side. That is beyond debate.

Why did the Bush-era tax cuts wind up doubling the unemployment level (other than Bush deregulation that led to massive outsourcing) if lowering taxes on the "job creators" is supposed to create jobs? Oh, I remmeber! Because it's a bullshit theory!

Again, systematically alienate and ultimately destroy the middle class (as the GOP is intent upon doing), and we go into a Great Depression that makes the one in the 30's seem like a six-point drop in the Dow. The collective grasp of economic theory of the Republicans and, more specifically, the Tea Baggers, is frightening.

Just how many infrastructure- and job- building programs do you propose to slash before, as has been speculated, we lose another million jobs? Is making Obama - who, truth be known, has (aside from the admittedly failed stimulus plan and the fantastically successful auto bailout) governed from right of center (see: continuation of the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), continuing most of Bush's policies? Don't forget that under Bush there was a GOP-caused global financial crisis (again, in 2007, minus one and a half years before the commencement of the Obama Administration). It's not like this country did anything other than triple the deficit and double unemployment with Bush at the helm.

[Seven Wishes2]

Wow. The proverbial goose of the GOP is cooked:



Complete, unadulterated, irrefutable FACTS. Cold, hard FACTS.
Keep in mind the conservatives on this board have cited the CBO continually as a 100% viable source for the past six years.

Based on the figures from the CBO, Bush spent $5.07 trillion on new expenditures from fiscal years 2002-2009. Obama will have spent only $1.44 trillion through 2017, including saving $126 billion through spending cuts.

According to the chart of costs based on new policies:

Bush’s tax cuts amounted to $1.812 trillion, compared to Obama’s stimulus tax cuts amounting to a projected $425 billion.
Bush spent $1.469 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other defense costs. Based on estimates published on the chart, Obama will have saved $126 billion in defense spending.
The Medicare drug benefits supported by Bush cost $180 billion. Obama’s health reform plan will have cost $152 billion, and will benefit more Americans.
Bush’s stimulus plan and other changes resulted in a $773 billion price tag. Obama’s stimulus spending was about $62 billion less at $711 billion.

So, neo-cons. Let's have a go at it, shall we? Further proof that the Obama "spendthrift" myth is just that.

[Saint John]

Yawn.


http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush- ... the-truth/

[Memorex]

Wow. The proverbial goose of the GOP is cooked:



Complete, unadulterated, irrefutable FACTS. Cold, hard FACTS.
Keep in mind the conservatives on this board have cited the CBO continually as a 100% viable source for the past six years.

Based on the figures from the CBO, Bush spent $5.07 trillion on new expenditures from fiscal years 2002-2009. Obama will have spent only $1.44 trillion through 2017, including saving $126 billion through spending cuts.

According to the chart of costs based on new policies:

Bush’s tax cuts amounted to $1.812 trillion, compared to Obama’s stimulus tax cuts amounting to a projected $425 billion.
Bush spent $1.469 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other defense costs. Based on estimates published on the chart, Obama will have saved $126 billion in defense spending.
The Medicare drug benefits supported by Bush cost $180 billion. Obama’s health reform plan will have cost $152 billion, and will benefit more Americans.
Bush’s stimulus plan and other changes resulted in a $773 billion price tag. Obama’s stimulus spending was about $62 billion less at $711 billion.

So, neo-cons. Let's have a go at it, shall we? Further proof that the Obama "spendthrift" myth is just that.

I gotta say - I am a firm - very firm believer that both side have spent way too much. Truly. So I am not one to sit here and give Bush a break. Not at all. However, this chart is about the single funniest thing I have seen in years. As someone very concerned about the out of control spending, charts like this scare me. It's like saying "let's stay the course" So, here are a few things right off the top:

- Revenue increased under Bush tax cuts. Where is the offset?
- Even if you count that as a deficit Obama's extention of Bush tax cuts is missing. Where is that number?
- The surge in Afganistan is missing. If you compare Obama spending to previous administration, of course the number is lower. Wonder how it compares to Clinton, which is what Bush is being compared to.
- Opperations in Lybia are missing.
- TARP Spending under Obama Administration.
- Service on National Debt is missing from both sides.
- The CBO estimate for health care reform was upped to over $1 trillion. OVER $1 TRILLION!
- Some funds were signed under Bush, but released at Obama's urging (not that Bush disagreed).
- There is room to question the Iraq war. There is no room to question the Afghanistan war. Maybe how it was handled at various stages. Maybe that we have lost more men in the last couple years than the first 7. Maybe that it has gone on too long. But going in there to avenge this country HAD to be done.

The funniest one of all, they are predicting President Obama won't spend more. If this chart were even remotely accurate, we'd be in some great times. Shame on the NY Times for printing this.

[Memorex]

And by the way - The CBO? Really? It's a joke for both sides. My 11 month old granddaughter has better math skills than the CBO.

[Seven Wishes2]

Revenues DECREASED under Bush and ARE included in the graph:

From FactCheck:

In a letter to Senator Kent Conrad, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag said that overall receipts increased by 1.9 percentage points as a share of GDP and that the increase “disproportionately” comes from a rise in corporate income tax revenues.

Orszag attributes two-thirds of the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits. The rest he pins to tax policy. For instance, when provisions allowing partial expensing of investment in equipment expired, tax revenue increased. In other words, revenue declined when the provisions were enacted and bumped up again when they expired.

Orszag says there was growth in capital gains realizations in individual tax receipts, but measures such as lower rates on dividends and an increase in the child tax credit, as well as a drop in job wages, caused a reduction in revenues. A CBO chart in Orszag's letter shows that legislation (not counting an impact on capital gains) had a total negative effect on revenue growth.

TARP spending IS included in the graph, as well. You're a very bright guy, but you can't bullshit your way out of this one.

[Seven Wishes2]

Further proof:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-)
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 (255.1) 1,511.5 1,845.5 (334.0) 0.7637 17.5 21.4 (3.9)
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 (203.2) 1,617.7 1,878.9 (261.2) 0.7780 18.0 21.0 (2.9)
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7 (164.0) 1,691.4 1,896.6 (205.1) 0.7992 18.4 20.6 (2.2)
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 (107.4) 1,775.5 1,906.7 (131.3) 0.8184 18.8 20.2 (1.4)
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 (21.9) 1,889.9 1,916.1 (26.2) 0.8356 19.2 19.5 (0.3)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 69.3 2,040.9 1,958.8 82.1 0.8436 19.9 19.1 0.8
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 125.6 2,136.4 1,989.5 146.8 0.8554 19.8 18.5 1.4
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 236.2 2,310.0 2,040.5 269.5 0.8767 20.6 18.2 2.4
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 128.2 2,215.3 2,072.6 142.7 0.8988 19.5 18.2 1.3
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 (157. 2,028.6 2,201.3 (172.7) 0.9135 17.6 19.1 (1.5)
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 (377.6) 1,901.1 2,303.9 (402. 0.9375 16.2 19.7 (3.4)
2004 1,880.1 2,292.8 (412.7) 1,949.5 2,377.5 (428.0) 0.9644 16.1 19.6 (3.5)
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 1.0000 17.3 19.9 (2.6)
2006 2,406.9 2,655.0 (248.2) 2,324.1 2,563.8 (239.6) 1.0356 18.2 20.1 (1.9)
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 (160.7) 2,411.9 2,562.9 (150.9) 1.0647 18.5 19.6 (1.2)
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 (458.6) 2,286.8 2,702.3 (415.5) 1.1037 17.5 20.7 (3.2)
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 (1,412.7) 1,898.3 3,172.2 (1,274.0) 1.1089 14.9 25.0 (10.0)
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2 (1,293.5) 1,919.0 3,066.7 (1,147.7) 1.1270 14.9 23.8 (8.9)
2011 estimate 2,173.7 3,818.8 (1,645.1) 1,901.9 3,341.3 (1,439.4) 1.1429 14.4 25.3 (10.9)
2012 estimate 2,627.4 3,728.7 (1,101.2) 2,261.5 3,209.4 (947.9) 1.1618 16.6 23.6 (7.0)
2013 estimate 3,003.3 3,770.9 (767.5) 2,541.3 3,190.8 (649.5) 1.1818 17.9 22.5 (4.6)
2014 estimate 3,332.6 3,977.1 (644.6) 2,768.4 3,303.8 (535.4) 1.2038 18.7 22.4 (3.6)
2015 estimate 3,583.0 4,189.8 (606.7) 2,920.4 3,414.9 (494.5) 1.2269 19.1 22.3 (3.2)
2016 estimate 3,819.1 4,467.8 (648.7) 3,054.5 3,573.4 (518. 1.2503 19.3 22.6 (3.3)

[Memorex]

Revenues DECREASED under Bush and ARE included in the graph:

From FactCheck:

In a letter to Senator Kent Conrad, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag said that overall receipts increased by 1.9 percentage points as a share of GDP and that the increase “disproportionately” comes from a rise in corporate income tax revenues.

Orszag attributes two-thirds of the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits. The rest he pins to tax policy. For instance, when provisions allowing partial expensing of investment in equipment expired, tax revenue increased. In other words, revenue declined when the provisions were enacted and bumped up again when they expired.

Orszag says there was growth in capital gains realizations in individual tax receipts, but measures such as lower rates on dividends and an increase in the child tax credit, as well as a drop in job wages, caused a reduction in revenues. A CBO chart in Orszag's letter shows that legislation (not counting an impact on capital gains) had a total negative effect on revenue growth.

Do they have a chart for where things would be if everyone got all of their spending wishes through? I mean think about all the spending that hasn't happened. My Lord!

Anyway - with the CBO again. Please.

I'd say - if you feel that your politicians have a handle on how to spend your money, it's awesome that you support them. And you should continue to do so. Sounds like the country is right on track for you. Very cool.

[Seven Wishes2]

Both sides are guilty of wasteful spending, and some fiscal responsibility is required by the Dems and the GOP.

However, we are MUCH better off than we would have been under Bush.

[Memorex]

Further proof:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-)
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 (255.1) 1,511.5 1,845.5 (334.0) 0.7637 17.5 21.4 (3.9)
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 (203.2) 1,617.7 1,878.9 (261.2) 0.7780 18.0 21.0 (2.9)
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7 (164.0) 1,691.4 1,896.6 (205.1) 0.7992 18.4 20.6 (2.2)
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 (107.4) 1,775.5 1,906.7 (131.3) 0.8184 18.8 20.2 (1.4)
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 (21.9) 1,889.9 1,916.1 (26.2) 0.8356 19.2 19.5 (0.3)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 69.3 2,040.9 1,958.8 82.1 0.8436 19.9 19.1 0.8
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 125.6 2,136.4 1,989.5 146.8 0.8554 19.8 18.5 1.4
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 236.2 2,310.0 2,040.5 269.5 0.8767 20.6 18.2 2.4
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 128.2 2,215.3 2,072.6 142.7 0.8988 19.5 18.2 1.3
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 (157. 2,028.6 2,201.3 (172.7) 0.9135 17.6 19.1 (1.5)
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 (377.6) 1,901.1 2,303.9 (402. 0.9375 16.2 19.7 (3.4)
2004 1,880.1 2,292.8 (412.7) 1,949.5 2,377.5 (428.0) 0.9644 16.1 19.6 (3.5)
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 1.0000 17.3 19.9 (2.6)
2006 2,406.9 2,655.0 (248.2) 2,324.1 2,563.8 (239.6) 1.0356 18.2 20.1 (1.9)
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 (160.7) 2,411.9 2,562.9 (150.9) 1.0647 18.5 19.6 (1.2)
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 (458.6) 2,286.8 2,702.3 (415.5) 1.1037 17.5 20.7 (3.2)
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 (1,412.7) 1,898.3 3,172.2 (1,274.0) 1.1089 14.9 25.0 (10.0)
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2 (1,293.5) 1,919.0 3,066.7 (1,147.7) 1.1270 14.9 23.8 (8.9)
2011 estimate 2,173.7 3,818.8 (1,645.1) 1,901.9 3,341.3 (1,439.4) 1.1429 14.4 25.3 (10.9)
2012 estimate 2,627.4 3,728.7 (1,101.2) 2,261.5 3,209.4 (947.9) 1.1618 16.6 23.6 (7.0)
2013 estimate 3,003.3 3,770.9 (767.5) 2,541.3 3,190.8 (649.5) 1.1818 17.9 22.5 (4.6)
2014 estimate 3,332.6 3,977.1 (644.6) 2,768.4 3,303.8 (535.4) 1.2038 18.7 22.4 (3.6)
2015 estimate 3,583.0 4,189.8 (606.7) 2,920.4 3,414.9 (494.5) 1.2269 19.1 22.3 (3.2)
2016 estimate 3,819.1 4,467.8 (648.7) 3,054.5 3,573.4 (518. 1.2503 19.3 22.6 (3.3)

Proof of what? Spike in revenue in 2005? Not sure what you are showing.

[Seven Wishes2]

Anything in parentheses denotes a NEGATIVE number...

[Memorex]

Anything in parentheses denotes a NEGATIVE number...

Yes it shows that even though revenues went up, our government is still pretty damn good at spending more than we have. Are you sure we should let that well-kept secret out of the bag?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Further proof:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-)
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 (255.1) 1,511.5 1,845.5 (334.0) 0.7637 17.5 21.4 (3.9)
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 (203.2) 1,617.7 1,878.9 (261.2) 0.7780 18.0 21.0 (2.9)
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7 (164.0) 1,691.4 1,896.6 (205.1) 0.7992 18.4 20.6 (2.2)
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 (107.4) 1,775.5 1,906.7 (131.3) 0.8184 18.8 20.2 (1.4)
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 (21.9) 1,889.9 1,916.1 (26.2) 0.8356 19.2 19.5 (0.3)
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 69.3 2,040.9 1,958.8 82.1 0.8436 19.9 19.1 0.8
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 125.6 2,136.4 1,989.5 146.8 0.8554 19.8 18.5 1.4
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 236.2 2,310.0 2,040.5 269.5 0.8767 20.6 18.2 2.4
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 128.2 2,215.3 2,072.6 142.7 0.8988 19.5 18.2 1.3
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 (157. 2,028.6 2,201.3 (172.7) 0.9135 17.6 19.1 (1.5)
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 (377.6) 1,901.1 2,303.9 (402. 0.9375 16.2 19.7 (3.4)
2004 1,880.1 2,292.8 (412.7) 1,949.5 2,377.5 (428.0) 0.9644 16.1 19.6 (3.5)
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 2,153.6 2,472.0 (318.3) 1.0000 17.3 19.9 (2.6)
2006 2,406.9 2,655.0 (248.2) 2,324.1 2,563.8 (239.6) 1.0356 18.2 20.1 (1.9)
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 (160.7) 2,411.9 2,562.9 (150.9) 1.0647 18.5 19.6 (1.2)
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 (458.6) 2,286.8 2,702.3 (415.5) 1.1037 17.5 20.7 (3.2)
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 (1,412.7) 1,898.3 3,172.2 (1,274.0) 1.1089 14.9 25.0 (10.0)
2010 2,162.7 3,456.2 (1,293.5) 1,919.0 3,066.7 (1,147.7) 1.1270 14.9 23.8 (8.9)
2011 estimate 2,173.7 3,818.8 (1,645.1) 1,901.9 3,341.3 (1,439.4) 1.1429 14.4 25.3 (10.9)
2012 estimate 2,627.4 3,728.7 (1,101.2) 2,261.5 3,209.4 (947.9) 1.1618 16.6 23.6 (7.0)
2013 estimate 3,003.3 3,770.9 (767.5) 2,541.3 3,190.8 (649.5) 1.1818 17.9 22.5 (4.6)
2014 estimate 3,332.6 3,977.1 (644.6) 2,768.4 3,303.8 (535.4) 1.2038 18.7 22.4 (3.6)
2015 estimate 3,583.0 4,189.8 (606.7) 2,920.4 3,414.9 (494.5) 1.2269 19.1 22.3 (3.2)
2016 estimate 3,819.1 4,467.8 (648.7) 3,054.5 3,573.4 (518. 1.2503 19.3 22.6 (3.3)

Proof of what? Spike in revenue in 2005? Not sure what you are showing.

It actually proves nothing that you want it to prove Seven . The Bush tax cuts were passed June 2001, with that rate still in place revenues by 2005 were back up to the 2000 level. The decrease in revenues between 2001 and 2003 was due to the mild recession which began in Q3 2000 and continued through 2001 and resulting lower receipts because of that.

The only trend line that the data proves (and it it is very clear from the whole set of data on the link from 1930 onwards) is that revenues to the US Govt have actually been increasing pretty much continously whilst spending has continued at even a faster pace. The problem is constantly increasing spending.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Wow. The proverbial goose of the GOP is cooked:



So, neo-cons. Let's have a go at it, shall we? Further proof that the Obama "spendthrift" myth is just that.

Well Im not a neo-con but can I have a go anyway and doesn't prove that Obama isnt a big spender This chart means nothing , for a number of reasons. but to list a few:


1. this chart talks about "new" initiatives. However does it list percentage budget increases in existing agencies and existing programmes. For example the Obama policy of increasing IRS budget to cope with health care to increase the investigative force of the IRS (5100 new agents in a few years ). You can find example after example of this in every agency - restructure of No Child left behind, new renewable energy initiavives. Kind of convenient to leave this bit out.

2. the Obama numbers are projections and projections dont necessary bear out. For example- 152 million cost for health care wont bear out if private employers, burdened by the new health care law start dropping coverage and those folks turn to obama care - the 152 million cost is going to mushroom.

3. the defense savings aren't savings yet. We aren't out of Afghanistan or Iraq. How do we know a new conflict wont arise. Also we won the war of 1812. Perhaps you should figure in a couple of billion dollars for the fact that we dont have to buy cannonballs to fight the battle of New Orleans again.

4. the tax cuts cuts here aren't spending. One dollar less taxed one less dollar in revenue


using this chart as evidence that Obama's spending is not out of control is kind of like trying to prove that Night Rangers Midnight Madness album is the greatest album ever by by playing a Peter Frampton album and saying , see I told you so..

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, if you choose to extrapolate the information using your own methodologies, you're missing the underlying point. That is, it's BEYOND EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL for GOP Senators and Representatives who are currently backing the "no-compromise" Tea Bagger stance on the debt ceiling and the deficit, since they pretty much unanimously voted for increases in the ceiling that nearly tripled the deficit under Bush. It shows Republicans are so obsessed with defeating Obama and every single one of his initiatives, that they are willing to forfeit the future of this country and bring on a second Great Depression instead of nudging just SLIGHTLY to the left (still massively right of center overall).

And before you mention it, don't forget the one debt ceiling vote SOME Democrats (Obama included) voted AGAINST was purely symbolic, as it was a protest against the omission of Bush's wars from the budget, and the GOP had the votes to pass it regardless.

So all these Republicans prattling on and on about "spending cuts" when they have no idea how revenue stimulates economic growth, and "stand behind" this New Raw Deal the GOP is pimping, it makes me sick.

And I included that table to show how net receipts prove just how much better things were under the Clinton Administration, when spending was reigned in to reasonable levels and those poor multi-millionaires had to pay (gasp) 3 percent higher a tax rate on every dollar they made past $250,000.

Bush's initiatives (including the wars) included six "projects" with outlays in excess of a total of $6 TRILLION that were COMPLETELY unpaid for, and the GOP hackneys went merrily along with it. Suddenly now, those same "spend whatever you want, Cowboy George" Republicans are about to send America into default...by not doing something Boner and McConnell themselves did a total of NINETEEN TIMES combined in the past 10 years.

[Memorex]

Well, if you choose to extrapolate the information using your own methodologies, you're missing the underlying point. That is, it's BEYOND EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL for GOP Senators and Representatives who are currently backing the "no-compromise" Tea Bagger stance on the debt ceiling and the deficit, since they pretty much unanimously voted for increases in the ceiling that nearly tripled the deficit under Bush. It shows Republicans are so obsessed with defeating Obama and every single one of his initiatives, that they are willing to forfeit the future of this country and bring on a second Great Depression instead of nudging just SLIGHTLY to the left (still massively right of center overall).

And before you mention it, don't forget the one debt ceiling vote SOME Democrats (Obama included) voted AGAINST was purely symbolic, as it was a protest against the omission of Bush's wars from the budget, and the GOP had the votes to pass it regardless.

So all these Republicans prattling on and on about "spending cuts" when they have no idea how revenue stimulates economic growth, and "stand behind" this New Raw Deal the GOP is pimping, it makes me sick.

And I included that table to show how net receipts prove just how much better things were under the Clinton Administration, when spending was reigned in to reasonable levels and those poor multi-millionaires had to pay (gasp) 3 percent higher a tax rate on every dollar they made past $250,000.

Bush's initiatives (including the wars) included six "projects" with outlays in excess of a total of $6 TRILLION that were COMPLETELY unpaid for, and the GOP hackneys went merrily along with it. Suddenly now, those same "spend whatever you want, Cowboy George" Republicans are about to send America into default...by not doing something Boner and McConnell themselves did a total of NINETEEN TIMES combined in the past 10 years.

I agree it is EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL. Beyond, as you say. 100%. Everyone needs to rein it in. We have a debt problem, not a debt ceiling problem. I would love all sides to stop using the american people as a blank check.

[Saint John]

it's BEYOND EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL for GOP Senators and Representatives who are currently backing the "no-compromise" Tea Bagger stance on the debt ceiling and the deficit, since they pretty much unanimously voted for increases in the ceiling that nearly tripled the deficit under Bush.

You do realize that are 63 new members to the House and 6 to the Senate, right? Those are both relatively huge numbers, and I think the vote you're now seeing stems from these newly elected officials voting in the very same manner that they promised the constituents that voted them in. You're sort of comparing apple peels to foreskins here.

[Saint John]

Executive Summary

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent vast sums on welfare or aid to the poor; however, the aggregate cost of this assistance is largely unknown because the spending is fragmented into myriad programs.

As this report shows, means-tested welfare or aid to poor and low-income persons is now the third most expen­sive government function. Its cost ranks below support for the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and below government expenditures on education, but above spending on national defense. Prior to the current reces­sion, one dollar in seven in total federal, state, and local government spending went to means-tested welfare.

Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance delib­erately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. By contrast, non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population. For example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are means-tested aid programs that provide benefits only to poor and lower-income persons. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, and public education are not means-tested; they pro­vide services and benefits to persons at all income levels.

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions.

Of the $714 billion in welfare spending, $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds. Nearly all state government welfare expenditures are required matching contributions to federal welfare programs. These contributions could be considered a "welfare tax" that the federal government imposes on the states. Ignoring these matching state payments into the federal welfare system results in a serious underestimation of spending on behalf of the poor.

Of total means-tested spending in FY 2008, 52 percent was spent on medical care for poor and lower-income persons, and 37 percent was spent on cash, food, and housing aid. The remaining 11 percent was spent on social ser­vices, training, child development, targeted federal education aid, and community development for lower-income persons and communities. Roughly half of means-tested spending goes to disabled or elderly persons. The other half goes to lower-income families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.

Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.; however, some welfare spending goes to individuals who have low incomes but are not below the official poverty line (about $22,200 per year for a family of four). Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Wel­fare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) when Presi­dent Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP.

Annual means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau, which is in charge of measuring poverty and inequality in the nation, defines a family as poor if its annual income falls below official poverty income thresholds. If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted into cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.

One may reasonably ask how government can spend so much on welfare and still have great inequality and so many people living in apparent poverty. The answer is that the Census ignores nearly the entire welfare system in its measurements. In its conventional reports, the Census counts only 4 percent of total welfare spending as income. Most government discussions of poverty and inequality do not account for the massive transfers of the welfare state.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dol­lars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).

In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined two-year increase will equal almost $263 billion ($88.2 bil­lion in FY 2009 plus $174.6 billion in FY 2010). After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two and a half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual fed­eral welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.

Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that "the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month." Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.

Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined federal and state spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.

According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four.

Over the next decade, federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while state spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.

In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average roughly 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation. Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow and Rachel Sheffield is Visiting Fellow in Welfare Studies in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

it's BEYOND EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL for GOP Senators and Representatives who are currently backing the "no-compromise" Tea Bagger stance on the debt ceiling and the deficit, since they pretty much unanimously voted for increases in the ceiling that nearly tripled the deficit under Bush.

You do realize that are 63 new members to the House and 6 to the Senate, right? Those are both relatively huge numbers, and I think the vote you're now seeing stems from these newly elected officials voting in the very same manner that they promised the constituents that voted them they would. You're sort of comparing apple peels to foreskins here.

Exactly, and individual is responsible for HIS own action..ie....... Rand Paul is not a hypocrite for refusing to agree to raise the debt ceiling just because Olympia Snowe, Orin Hatch did the wrong thing in the past. there would be no current debate over this issue if those new members hadn't kicked off and just voted to raise the limit, and they are right in doing so.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

And I included that table to show how net receipts prove just how much better things were under the Clinton Administration, when spending was reigned in to reasonable levels and those poor multi-millionaires had to pay (gasp) 3 percent higher a tax rate on every dollar they made past $250,000.

.

No the last president who doesn't bear any responsibility for selling the US out to big government was Calvin Coolidge. Every other president from Herbert Hoover to Barack Obama has either openly advocated a vastly expanded govt and greater levels of debt or just sat back and didn't fight it. The debt continued rise during the Clinton years and he made his own contribution to the mess we are in today.

Oh By the way Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut , cutting top capital gains rates from 28 to 20 on a number of areas in August 1997. Rich folks loved it because rates on a sale of a 500,000 home / estate were slashed and the
Im not sure why you forgot to mention this ?

[lights1961]

the last thing i will say about the debt ceiling is this... liberals the left and socialists wont be happy until we have a 60,000,0000,0000,000 budget... with the millionares paying 65-70% tax...(they will still say thats not enough tax)... and the ones under 30,000.00 pay nothing and get a free ride for everything...just saying...

R

[slucero]

Something to ponder... sort of reinforces the notion that both parties are flip-flopping, lying sacks of shit.

Obama 2006 vs. Obama January 2011 vs. Obama April 2011 on the Debt Ceiling
April 11, 2011 3:12 PM

In March 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found the notion of raising the debt ceiling quite distasteful.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

He did. It passed narrowly – by a vote of 52-48.

In January, I asked then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about those comments and that vote, given the president’s belief that the debt ceiling needs to be raised in May.

Gibbs said it was OK for then-Senator Obama to have cast that vote, since the outcome was guaranteed.

“Based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt,” Gibbs said. Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”

On Sunday, senior White House adviser David Plouffe revised that explanation.

“He believes that vote was a mistake,” Plouffe told Fox News Sunday.

And today White House press secretary Jay Carney said that “the president, as David Plouffe said yesterday, regrets that vote and thinks it was a mistake. He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so

important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with, and you need to take very seriously the need to raise the debt limit so that the full faith and credit of the United States government is maintained around the globe.”

Referencing Gibbs’s response three months ago, AP reporter Ben Feller asked Carney, “When did the president come to the realization this was a mistake?”

“Well, we asked him, and he made clear that he now believes it was a mistake,” Carney said. “And he understands that when you're in the legislature, when you're in the Senate, you want to make clear your position if you don't agree with the policies of the administration.”

-Jake Tapper