I Suppose We Should Thank Joe Wilson

[marks2065 0]

I guess you can't think clearly clouded by stupid lefty thinking. It wasn't the tax cuts that caused the deficit, it was the overspending by the government. Both sides have overspent but the left has some afterburners added to the check book.

[dsandreas 0]

In Reply To

You are missing the entire point. Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel. If speeding is illegal but the authorities have no tools to monitor speed and there is no fine for speeding....how much speeding will be prevented?

You are quite naive to think these few words would prevent illegal immigrants being covered...it's a completely meaningless provision as it currently stands.

I thought that righties were supposed to be all about minimal government.

Why all of a sudden are you all in favor af having to show your National ID card when conducting transactions for goods and services?


Where are your papers? You must have your papers in order.


Why the support for a huge expansion of government intrusion into personal privacy?

Just to save a few dollars? That is pathetic.

The stench continues to be overwhelming....

reply_____________________________________

You have somehow made the leap that I am for something I am not. I am not in favor of the federal government taking over healthcare...nor the need for an identity card. I am just pointing out the fact that illegals can get coverage/benefits the way the House Bill is written today.

I am all for 1) tort reform, 2) elimination of state barriers and mandates, 3) tax credits for health insurance, and 4) reducing waste and fraud in the current programs and using the savings to expand Medicaid coverage for those that are truly needy and here legally.

Next time...don't make up my side of the argument. I can do it fine.

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.

Thanks be to the GOP.
______________________________________________

Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I guess you can't think clearly clouded by stupid lefty thinking. It wasn't the tax cuts that caused the deficit, it was the overspending by the government. Both sides have overspent but the left has some afterburners added to the check book.

As a percentage of GDP it has remained constant, therefore the independent variable would be the taxation rate/collection:

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif

Notice how under Clinton it is a surplus and under GWB it turned to a deficit? That's the drastic tax cuts enacted by GWB. It's more obvious here when not a % of GDP:

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif


As for spending, here's a chart:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

Look at page 26.

From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase.

Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%).

Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase.

Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase.

The methodology I used to determine these numbers was the first year to the last year of presidency, although there is a gap year in budget, we could apply the 2nd year of a president's term as their first since that is their first budget year passed, but also some presidents sign immediate spending / taxing measures right off the bat, so I chose this method. If anyone chooses a different method and calculation post it with methodology.

So this is a case where we are both right, gross cutting of taxation under Republicans and gross overspending by Republicans is the cause of the 12T debt.....kinda what I was saying.

Let's summarize your point: spending:

Reagan = 57% increase
GHWB = 42% increase (was 21% in 4 years, adjusted for 8)
Clinton = 27% increase
GWB = 56% increase

Along with the GROSS TAX CUTS under Reagan and GWB there is your answer: both cuts and overspending are to blame for the massive debt increase Reagan and GWB created. I've said for a while now that Reagan and GWB are the same type president, thx for pushing me to do this research, I see how right I was.

[dsandreas 0]

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending. To chalk up revenue or spending as only a function of the President at the time shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of how the U.S. government operates.

I guess the education system isn't what it used to be....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.

Thanks be to the GOP.
______________________________________________

Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples.

I wouldn't say always, post WWII inflation outled spending and during the late 70's inflation led as well. But during the CLinton years total inflation was ~20% and spending increased only 27%, so it was close, a sustained period of great economic success paired with debt recovery and deficit to surplus management. I think it's fair to say that you are right with The Reagan and GWB years that spending FAR LED (many times over) inflation, as spending was runaway.

Quote

Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....

Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending. To chalk up revenue or spending as only a function of the President at the time shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of how the U.S. government operates.

I guess the education system isn't what it used to be....

Quote

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending.

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates legislation that become taxation laws? They do both and the president signs or vetoes.

Quote

To chalk up revenue or spending as only a function of the President at the time shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of how the U.S. government operates.

The president is the ultimate legislator; 1 vote can strike or affirm legislation. Other than a rare veto override, the president IS the legislative body. The only thing is he can't initiate legislation, just prompt his allies in Congress to do so.

But in a way, he does initiate legislation in 1 aspect, the very aspect we are talking about. The Federal US budget initiates from the president, that's the bill where the president proposes to COngress what he wants so as to not waste time. So once again, what we're talking about here, the president initiates annual spending bills, they go to the House, Senate and then back to the president for sign or veto.

And you say the president has nothing to do with spending.....

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus.

____________________________________________________

NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc?

During Clinton's time defense spending was cut significantly and there was a bit of spending restraint in Congress. Clinton was forced into supporting things such as welfare reform (which reduced spending). However, that welfare reform was just gutted by the stimulus bill (which will increase spending).

Step 1: remove head from sand.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I am all for 1) tort reform,
2) elimination of state barriers and mandates,
3) tax credits for health insurance, and
4) reducing waste and fraud in the current programs and using the savings to expand Medicaid coverage for those that are truly needy and here legally.

1) tort reform; translation: civil immunity for doctors and insurance companies making a business decision when deciding whether to honor a valid claim, while that person dies in the process.

2) elimination of state barriers and mandates; translation: No real advantage, it just sounds like a good plan to allegedly save money.


3) tax credits for health insurance; translation: No more employer-provide coverage, out of work - out of coverage. You can have your tax credit, but with no job the write-off is meaningless....oh, and we'llbe cutting that tax credit slowly until you don't even have that. Huh, I wonder what people making 15k/yr could do with a tax credit, considering they don't pay taxes anyway with their nothing income? I wonder how a 10-20k tax credit works for people making >100k/yr? Oh, I see, pretty well. Now who are the Republicans here to represent?

4) reducing waste and fraud in the current programs and using the savings to expand Medicaid coverage for those that are truly needy and here legally; translation: When the program allegely saves money, in 5 or 10 years, we will think about divertiung some of that money to a couple people who we deem needy, maybe.


Do we really want the same party directing our health coverage that gave us the Katrina response and recovery?

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

But in a way, he does initiate legislation in 1 aspect, the very aspect we are talking about. The Federal US budget initiates from the president, that's the bill where the president proposes to COngress what he wants so as to not waste time. So once again, what we're talking about here, the president initiates annual spending bills, they go to the House, Senate and then back to the president for sign or veto.

And you say the president has nothing to do with spending.....
_________________________________________________

Step 2: improve reading comprehension. I NEVER said the President has nothing to do with spending.

Step 3: read how government works. Start with Article 1 Section 7.

• Quote

[billvon 3,009]

> By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.

Perhaps you should eliminate Joe Wilson first, then.

================================
Joe Wilson Voted To Provide Taxpayer Money For Illegal Immigrants' Healthcare

Posted by Mehret Tesfaye
September 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

On Wednesday night, Rep. Joe Wilson [R, SC-2], shouted “You lie!” at President Obama when he said that the healthcare bill would not cover illegal immigrants. “The supporters of the government takeover of healthcare and liberals who want to give healthcare to illegals are using my opposition as an excuse to distract from the critical questions being raised about this poorly conceived plan,” Wilson said the next day in a campaign fundraising video.

However, in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.
================================

It's an inevitability. Republicans who support family values are doing their secretary. GOPers who rail against gay marriage troll for gay hookers in bathrooms. And republicans who oppose funding for illegals vote for it when they think it will get them re-elected.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been.

Oh, I am so, so sorry you missed the data provided by the US Gov. Here it is:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

Look at page 26.

From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase.

Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%).

Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase.

Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase.


So yes, the Republicans are the offenders here, they have spent twice that of the 1 Democrat since 1981, so we really are on the same page here.

Quote

Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc?

No, I saw these programs, the biggest of which passed under GWB and implemented in part then too. If we didn't bailout the banks the country would be into GD part II, once again brought to us by the Republican Party. And we manufacture so little durable goods anyway, so to lose the auto industry would be catastrophic. These measures you speak of were often voted for in a bipartisan vote, so not sure what your point is. Tax cuts of GWB ran this county into the crapper and now we have to deal with it whilethe recipients of these cuts are laughing their asses off.

Quote

During Clinton's time defense spending was cut significantly and there was a bit of spending restraint in Congress.

Probably not as much as you think, but certainly militay cuts, about as much as under GHWB.

Quote

Clinton was forced into supporting things such as welfare reform (which reduced spending). However, that welfare reform was just gutted by the stimulus bill (which will increase spending).

Was he also forced to sign NAFTA or the Marriage Defense Act? I don't think he was forced into anything. Now to convolute and detract from Clinton's economic success by transposing the failures of his successor, GWB, is unrealistic. Clinton's fiscal accomplishment stand alone, this GWB-created mess stands alone; let's not mix them.

Quote

Step 1: remove head from sand.

Step 2: supply data with your arguments.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Perhaps you should eliminate Joe Wilson first, then.

Retroactively eliminate Reagan as well, before he signed the Amnesty Act in 1986.

(not that I'm wholly against it, just that it defies their arguments.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Step 2: improve reading comprehension. I NEVER said the President has nothing to do with spending.

And I never said you asserted that. But you said the bill starts with Congress, you wrote:

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending.

The part I don’t get is that it isn’t true; it starts with the president at least for the biggest spending measure; the annual budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

And altho the president doesn't submit a bill to the House, he does submit a proposal that is the basis of the bill or the threat of veto looms.

The president has the most to do with spending, as he proposes it and ultmately votes for or against it as a deciding vote.

Quote

read how government works. Start with Article 1 Section 7.

Considering you think the president plays a subordinate role with the annual budget, I think I don;t need to read up. In trying to defend your great Republican Presidents you want to shift the blame to Congress. Of course under GWB this is fair due to him not casting 1 veto for 5 1/2 years of his Republican Congress.

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

Clinton was forced into supporting things such as welfare reform (which reduced spending). However, that welfare reform was just gutted by the stimulus bill (which will increase spending).

Was he also forced to sign NAFTA or the Marriage Defense Act? I don't think he was forced into anything.
_________________________________________________

I feel like I am explaining physics to a 3 year old.

- The Presidents you mention do not control the spending alone. The government has been shut down in the past over Presidents refusing to sign bills they don't agree with.
- I have never said anything in support of any President. I think both Bush Presidencies were terrible. I am against big government regardless of the party, who is in the White House or what they think they are fixing (inevitably they make it worse).
- Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice and only signed it when poll numbers showed broad support. Maybe since he vetoed it twice its logical to think he wasn't a proponent. It certainly wasn't his agenda item...it came from the House.

Step 4. stop attributing things to me I don't believe and have never written.
Step 5. read a little history.

• Quote

[sundevil777 102]

To say one side cut taxes is not relevant. What does matter is the resulting tax revenue collected. It would be wrong to assume that cutting tax rates reduces the amount collected.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Bolas 5]

Quote

> By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.

Perhaps you should eliminate Joe Wilson first, then.

================================
Joe Wilson Voted To Provide Taxpayer Money For Illegal Immigrants' Healthcare

Posted by Mehret Tesfaye
September 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

On Wednesday night, Rep. Joe Wilson [R, SC-2], shouted “You lie!” at President Obama when he said that the healthcare bill would not cover illegal immigrants. “The supporters of the government takeover of healthcare and liberals who want to give healthcare to illegals are using my opposition as an excuse to distract from the critical questions being raised about this poorly conceived plan,” Wilson said the next day in a campaign fundraising video.

However, in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.
================================

It's an inevitability. Republicans who support family values are doing their secretary. GOPers who rail against gay marriage troll for gay hookers in bathrooms. And republicans who oppose funding for illegals vote for it when they think it will get them re-elected.

So because he didn't outright reject a bill because someone else put their pet pork in it, he's an adulterer?

Liberals and conservatives have been dancing this dance for years. Conservatives want lower taxes and less gov't, liberals just want more gov't. No one want to raise taxes as it's political suicide. Combine the two and you get a hybrid that can't be sustained.

The total disconnect between "profits" and "expenses" is what got us in this mess. If new or expanding programs had to secure funding up front, we'd be much better off.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The Presidents you mention do not control the spending alone. The government has been shut down in the past over Presidents refusing to sign bills they don't agree with.

Where did I say or infer they act alone? You kinda make my point there by saying the gov has been shut down by the president refusing to sign. You agree that the president does have ultimate power over spending bills.

As an aside, you are also wrong about the refusing to sign part, as the federal budget is generally submitted before Congress goes on break and the only way a president can refuse to sign and have the bill die is with a pocket veto, so my point is that the president has to overtly veto the bill if congress has more than 10 days before going on break, then he can just ignore it.

Quote

I have never said anything in support of any President.

No but deductively you are in support of tax cuts, thinking they have actually ever improved economic conditions at a federal level, yet are unable to substantiate your claims with any substance, data, reference, etc. And who is for tax cuts; Republicans, so I made the leap.

Quote

I think both Bush Presidencies were terrible.

Again, no explanation; why? They were so very different in policy. Reagan and GWB were very similar and GHWB and Clinton were similar.

Quote

I am against big government regardless of the party, who is in the White House or what they think they are fixing (inevitably they make it worse).

So which president(s) do you like and why?

Quote

Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice and only signed it when poll numbers showed broad support. Maybe since he vetoed it twice its logical to think he wasn't a proponent. It certainly wasn't his agenda item...it came from the House.

Not sure I agree and how can we infer his beliefs? He pushed hard for "Don't ask dont tell" and then signed the Mariage Defense Act of 1996. I know he conceded to tax cuts in 96-97 so he could get minimum wage increases, but I don't know and haven't seen anything credible out of the Workfare program. Besides, he cut welfare, something you agree with, are you now decrying him for that? Bizzare.

Quote

stop attributing things to me I don't believe and have never written.

You wrote:

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending.

For all intents and purposes the president originates the annual federal spending bill, you claim it comes from Congress; that's wrong. Other than that, how am I misquoting you?

Quote

read a little history.

I constantly do, that's how I'm able to supplu historical tax data that you refuse to address. Let's tone it down a bit and go back to the original point; taxation / debt / spending.

Look at any major tax bill in the last 100 years and tell me how increasing taxes hurt the economy and how cutting them helped. Pick any one MAJOR tax change and make an argument. Don't pick a microcosm in time or a puny tax change, stick with the big ones - that's all I ask. After all, this is our major disagreement, let's hear your side with supporting data.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

To say one side cut taxes is not relevant. What does matter is the resulting tax revenue collected. It would be wrong to assume that cutting tax rates reduces the amount collected.

Sure, GHWB was a tax raiser, but he was also an anomoly, as most recent Republicans cut taxes. I'm not being partisan though, as I've given GHWB credit for helping the overall economy and being a very good president. As I posted earlier, he also spent less than Reagan, on an 8-year basis he increased spending 42% as compared to Reagan's 57%, GWB's 56%. Primarily I would assert his spending cuts were miltary.

So I don't want to attack the party either, just point out that cutting taxes is devastating, raising them helps; please provide data to the contrary, as I have provided data to support my position.

[dsandreas 0]

Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Conservatives want lower taxes and less gov't...

How can you say that, Reagan and GWB had spending increases > twice that of Clinton. Spending = more government; agreed?

Quote

liberals just want more gov't.

They've spent less and been more fiscally responsible, how can that be true?

Quote

No one want to raise taxes as it's political suicide.

Not always, it was for GHWB and wasn't for Clinton.

Quote

The total disconnect between "profits" and "expenses" is what got us in this mess.

No, insane tax cuts and runaway spending is what got us into this mess; follow the trail:

- Bush massive tax cuts

- Economy lags

- Fed Chairman lowers interest rates too much for too long due to need of economic stimulation.

- House payments (PITI) are basically prinicpal and interest, as interest falls, principal climbs and people qualify for higher principal loans with eqqual monthly payments as before.

- Since home values increase daily, sub-prime borrowers are welcomed and not screened, thinking the house can outlast even the worst borrower. This is true for a while, but like any ponzi scheme, first in win, last in lose, and the end came about 12/2006.

When Obama inherited the mess, we wre in our 4th out of 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, unprecedented since the GD. The stimulus brought 3 consecutive and spiralling negative GDP growth to an end, the GDP had a -1 growth rate last quarter, down from an inconceivable -6.4.

So the answer is that the tax cuts led to the mess, in GHWB's recession he decided to leave the interest rate high to avoid this, now they tried lowering it and learned it didn't workout well.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

he also spent less than Reagan, on an 8-year basis he increased spending 42% as compared to Reagan's 57%, GWB's 56%. Primarily I would assert his spending cuts were miltary.

When GWB was president The Cold War was ending...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself.

Excellent, and w/o leaving 1, not 1 piece of data? Ok, well let me send ya off with this:

From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase.

Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%).

Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase.

Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase.

But you are right, without you or any adverse debaters providing data, I am debating myself. My rule is that if I cannot provide data or some legitimate support then my opinion is limited and others aren't required to believe it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

he also spent less than Reagan, on an 8-year basis he increased spending 42% as compared to Reagan's 57%, GWB's 56%. Primarily I would assert his spending cuts were miltary.

When GWB was president The Cold War was ending...

Actually it ended 4 1/2 months after GHWB took office.

More importantly, GHWB wasn't so delluded, as was Reagan, to think, "The Commies are coming, the Commies are coming." We can find whatever reasoning we need, but GHWB substantially reduced the military and did as all a favor. He did the unthinkable for a Republican President, he:

- Reduced teh military
- Raised taxes

Don't really care why, he did us a huge favor and was so, "un-Republican." And it cost him the presidency, as well as Perot splitting the R vote too.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself.

In other words, you are asking for short, simple statements that are easily understood by the average ten year old.

Sorry, this isn't Faux News.

If you want to debate with grownups, your intellect and reading skills should be up to the task.

If they aren't, perhaps you could find another way to spend your time...