Deficit dropped since Obama's budget took effect

Then there's this:
Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent

Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.
. . .
That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.
Click to expand...
 
thaiboxerken said:
By 8%. How does that fact sit with you tea baggers?
Click to expand...
Source?

Puppycow said:
Then there's this:
Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent

Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.
. . .
That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The degree of cognitive dissonance is astounding.
 
Last edited:
bozothedeathmachine said:
No, the Republicans (and their followers) that decry deficits and laud deficit-increasing tax cuts.
Click to expand...

It is not cognitive dissonance it is a different philosophy.
From the same article.

"We have a spending problem. We spend too much. We don't have a taxing problem. We don't tax too little," McConnell told reporters Tuesday. "And if we want to begin to get ourselves out of this economic trough that we're in, the only way to do that is to grow the private sector."
Click to expand...

According to his belief it will not raise the deficit because spending needs to be cut and lowering taxes will increase revenue by "growing the private sector".
 
The headlines of this kind of bs statistics is usually missing the phrase "than expected". Or maybe should be worded "the rate of growth of the deficit is 8% less than expected".

It probably means that, due to departmental inefficiency, the money pipeline is too small to spend all that money in just one year.
 
casebro said:
The headlines of this kind of bs statistics is usually missing the phrase "than expected". Or maybe should be worded "the rate of growth of the deficit is 8% less than expected".

It probably means that, due to departmental inefficiency, the money pipeline is too small to spend all that money in just one year.
Click to expand...

This is what I suspected when I first saw the thread. So many times we hear that the projections were low so the deficit is lower for a particular month. It has nothing to do with spending restraint, and everything to do with the fact that statisticians aren't clarivoyant.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
This is what I suspected when I first saw the thread. So many times we hear that the projections were low so the deficit is lower for a particular month. It has nothing to do with spending restraint, and everything to do with the fact that statisticians aren't clarivoyant.
Click to expand...
It's like how a budget increase is spun as a budget "cut", because it didn't increase as much as some wanted it to.
 
So...I'm supposed to be happy the deficit jumped to $1,000,000,000,000, then dropped back down $80 billion? to only $920,000,000,000?

These asshat clowns need to have their asshats handed to them this November.




The problem is, of course, that we allow them to borrow to burn both ends of the candle. "Congress shall have a balanced budget except in the case of war or a 2/3 supermajority." End of story.


Of course, I'd make all laws require a supermajority, with the Constitutional mandate that they expire in 5 years unless renewed, repeat ad nauseum.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
So...I'm supposed to be happy the deficit jumped to $1,000,000,000,000, then dropped back down $80 billion? to only $920,000,000,000?

These asshat clowns need to have their asshats handed to them this November.
Click to expand...

and you think the next asshats will make less depth?
 
Spindrift said:
Which deficit? Budget? Trade?
Click to expand...
Digging around through the Monthly Treasury Statement (linky) shows that (all figures in millions) FY2009 the deficit was 1,415,724 , and 1,370,000 through August. So far the deficit for FY2010 is 1,259,597, which is about 8% less. So the deficit is down from the craptacular year that was last year.
 
Giggywig said:
Digging around through the Monthly Treasury Statement (linky) shows that (all figures in millions) FY2009 the deficit was 1,415,724 , and 1,370,000 through August. So far the deficit for FY2010 is 1,259,597, which is about 8% less. So the deficit is down from the craptacular year that was last year.
Click to expand...

Last year was Bush's budget.
 
bozothedeathmachine said:
No, the Republicans (and their followers) that decry deficits and laud deficit-increasing tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Not so much cognitive dissonance as being willing to believe outright falsehoods from their political leaders. A large percentage of these people believe cutting taxes will reduce the deficit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom