• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shutdown avoided, White House, Congress cheer deal

A flat fair tax raises taxs on the poor and middle class and dramtically lowers it for the richest americans...theres nothing fair about it

I have to disagree with you here. Under a flat tax, if there are no taxes on food, rent or mortgage, medicine, and tuition, the poor won't be suffering at all. What's more, corporations will have no choice but to pay their fair share. As it stands now, many of them pay ZERO. Tell me what's so fair about that.
 
I would like to see avoiding the term "cuts" and just fight the abuse.

Nobody wants to asks to ask for cuts in the Defense Dept as you are seen as Anti-America and taking food out of the mouths of the GI's and their families.
Would prefer to see an aggressive whistleblower reward system. If you are a civilian company and get a contract with the military you just won the lottery. The $150 hammer is not a myth.
I wrote to President Nixon in 1970 while in active service about the waste in the military. Was promptly answered by the Pentagon for jumping the chain of command.
It is going to take the common citizen to act on the blowing of your tax dollars. You cannot depend on the congress to watch out for us.
 
I would like to see avoiding the term "cuts" and just fight the abuse.

Nobody wants to asks to ask for cuts in the Defense Dept as you are seen as Anti-America and taking food out of the mouths of the GI's and their families.
Would prefer to see an aggressive whistleblower reward system. If you are a civilian company and get a contract with the military you just won the lottery. The $150 hammer is not a myth.
I wrote to President Nixon in 1970 while in active service about the waste in the military. Was promptly answered by the Pentagon for jumping the chain of command.
It is going to take the common citizen to act on the blowing of your tax dollars. You cannot depend on the congress to watch out for us.
You right and I was once one of those who would accuse you of such, well not any more. I have seen enough and there is clearly a abuse but I would say on all levels of government starting at the local level on up to the federal level. It appears to me that anyone who gets any government contract at any level has won the lottery. The government should stick to it 18 enumerated powers opposed to the thousands it currently takes on...of course there will be exceptions.
 
National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:
2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion

National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:
Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Trillion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-Trillion

But of the $3.56-trillion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:
Bush: $910-billion = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billion = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billion = TARP bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billion = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

Bush's contributions:
2001 to 2008: $4.769-trillion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-trillion
Total: $7.950-trillion
Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-Trillion
Bush's contribution: $7.950-trillion / $8.26-Trillion = 96%

Obama only contribution: $580-billion = Stimulus Spending (as of Dec 2010).
Increase caused By Bush's Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama's Programs: 4%

And lets not forget that Bush inherited a massive surplus from Clinton, whereas Obama inherited Bush's economic crater. It's been decades since Conservatives have been fiscally conservative, now they're just social conservatives. Harper is just a bad as Bush.

Bull**** alert! Bull**** alert! That little bolded tidbit has been debunked many times, so why keep saying it? There was NEVER a budget surplus under Clinton. And the democratic congress in control the last 2 years of the Bush administration is responsible for the mess Obama has. He has noone to thank but his own party. Clinton's congress was much better, but no surprise here, it was run by republicans. So congress, not the president, is responsible for spending. Repubs have proven they are for at least trying to spend less.
 
Last edited:
Keynesian economic theory tells us that this is the wrong time to be cutting government spending; when there is a dearth of consumer demand, government deficit spending is an excellent way to create demand in the economy.

The country is not broke; Tea Party people say this all the time but it's not true, far from it. The U.S. has had no trouble selling Treasuries. The current national debt is roughly equal to the national GDP. The real issue is the long term, not the short term.

Federal taxation levels are at all time lows, 16% of GDP, while spending is at 25% of GDP; that difference is the deficit. We should, over the next decade gradually close that gap through combinations of spending cuts and tax increases; the president's debt commission recommended 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases.

But the current Tea Party proposal for draconian, immediate spending cuts is both wrongheaded and harmful; they will cost us more in the long run by extending the recession and harming American growth potential now and in the future.

This 2011 budget was a big victory for the Tea Party: they changed the focus from economic recovery through Keynesian theory-based government spending to reducing the deficit through arbitrary and harmful spending cuts. As some have already pointed out, worse yet maybe immediately before us.
 
In reality neither side could do what they wanted until 2012 if one side had won the presidency and senate. We'll have to wait until 2012 for real budget reform.
 
… There was NEVER a budget surplus under Clinton. …

Perhaps, you are too young to remember; or, perhaps, you're too old to remember; either way, there was a time when government economists fretted about the Clinton federal surplus.


Excerpted from “SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION” By RICHARD W. STEVENSON, The New York Times, Published: January 31, 2001
[SIZE="+2"]E[/SIZE]ven as projections of the federal budget surplus were revised upward once again, the Bush administration squared off with Democrats today over whether the government can afford everything the new president promised during the campaign, from a big tax cut to a national missile defense system.

Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.

The new projection, which is to be released officially on Wednesday, is $1 trillion higher than the budget office's previous estimate, in July, and about $600 billion more than the Clinton administration's final projection, which was released last month. …

The current federal deficit is substantially higher because of a severe economic recession brought about a failure of proper government oversight of the financial sector over the past decade. However the effects of that recession will diminish as the economy recovery proceeds. The real concern is the long term, built-in deficits; and, a substantial contributor to those are the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
 
.
Obama taking credit for spending cuts is laughable.

This is why there won't be any budget next year. If they reach a deal and Obama signs it, he can take some credit for it which is exactly what Republicans don't want in a Presidential election year.

It's sad but true -- the two parties care more about winning than they do about doing what's right for America.
 
This is why there won't be any budget next year. If they reach a deal and Obama signs it, he can take some credit for it which is exactly what Republicans don't want in a Presidential election year.

It's sad but true -- the two parties care more about winning than they do about doing what's right for America.
Exactly rocket88!
the two parties care more about winning than they do about doing what's right for America.
 
We should've shut it down. It should be abolished, to force Americans to fight again for their freedom. Decent people of the land UNITE.
 
If you call it a win-win when Congress cuts $38 billion in spending against a $14 trillion deficit, you are delusional.

You are confusing deficit with debt. This reduces the deficit by about 2 %. That is actually a pretty decent number. Federal spending is a significant fraction of GDP, so you do not want to cut too much at once or it will significantly hurt the economy. Cut 1 to 3 % per year from spending, combine that with GDP growth of 3ish %, and you are reducing the deficit at a fairly decent clip without risking harming the economy.
 
We are not talking about FOX news or are we? This quote below directly from the EPA's website...unconstitutional. Congress shall make no law..
EPA is called a regulatory agency because Congress authorizes us to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. In addition, a number of Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in our activities.

I believe you attempted to make a point about the EPA doing something it shouldn't. And now you seem to be reversing course and agreeing with me. Very smart.

The EPA's regulation of CO2 is legal, constitutional, and very necessary.

If you're still confused, here's the case I was referring to: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
 
I believe you attempted to make a point about the EPA doing something it shouldn't. And now you seem to be reversing course and agreeing with me. Very smart.

The EPA's regulation of CO2 is legal, constitutional, and very necessary.

If you're still confused, here's the case I was referring to: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency


I believe you attempted to make a point about the EPA doing something it shouldn't. And now you seem to be reversing course and agreeing with me
No I am not reversing my point, I posted the EPA mission statement which is my complaint. The EPA was enacted by executive order making a unconstitutional arm of the government and having no power to make or enforce law. The President of the United States can not make federal agencies with powers over the states, if this is the case then we have a King. No need to go into the three branches of government or states rights, I am sure you are well aware of it's powers and how it's divided.

Interesting and to the point..IMO it's correct. SCOTUS should know better and should stay with in the realm of the constitution, this decision wasn't unanimous. OH BTW no one wants to breath bad air.

The EPA's regulation of CO2 is legal, constitutional, and very necessary
For more than sixty years, however, this "non-delegation" doctrine has been honored only in the breach. This term, the Supreme Court will hear a case addressing whether that old principle, which our Founders thought essential to liberty, has any lingering vitality. At issue in Browner v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. is whether Congress improperly delegated its lawmaking powers to the Environmental Protection Agency when, in the Clean Air Act, it authorized the EPA to set national air quality standards at levels "requisite to protect the public health" with an "adequate margin of safety." How high the air quality standards should be, and at what cost, are quintessentially legislative decisions that constitutionally must be made by Congress alone. The Court of Appeals therefore held that the Clean Air Act is unconstitutional unless the EPA can offer an interpretation of the statute that confers upon the EPA only a gap-filling, and not a lawmaking, authority.

Browner is a highly complex case, but much more is at stake than just national air quality standards. In a way, the validity of the entire administrative state is at stake. Independent administrative agencies, run by government officials who are neither elected to their new lawmaking capacity nor answerable to the chief executive, combine the lawmaking, executing, and judging functions of government in a single place — the "very definition of tyranny," according to James Madison.
The Claremont Institute - Is the EPA "The Very Definition of Tyranny"?
 
Last edited:
We should've shut it down.
I strongly disagree. That would have amounted to nothing more than a punt on the big issues that need to be resolved.

It should be abolished, to force Americans to fight again for their freedom.
Anarchy is not a viable alternative. No society has flourished under anarchy.
 
No I am not reversing my point, I posted the EPA mission statement which is my complaint. The EPA was enacted by executive order making a unconstitutional arm of the government and having no power to make or enforce law.

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees with you. They ordered the EPA to enforce the law.

The law already on the books is the Clean Air Act.

CO2 emissions are a public safety issue. Despite what coal shills like Inhof say.

You keep revealing your total ignorance on this subject with every post...
 
Perhaps, you are too young to remember; or, perhaps, you're too old to remember; either way, there was a time when government economists fretted about the Clinton federal surplus.




The current federal deficit is substantially higher because of a severe economic recession brought about a failure of proper government oversight of the financial sector over the past decade. However the effects of that recession will diminish as the economy recovery proceeds. The real concern is the long term, built-in deficits; and, a substantial contributor to those are the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

I don't give a damn what Ari Fliecher said. That is NOT proof that there was a surplus! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Fiscal Year End Total Debt
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

Where is the surplus?

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt.

With the debt never once going down in any given year during the Clinton administration, where is the surplus?

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.


Like I said, it's been debunked. Quit saying it's true.
 
Last edited:
I don't give a damn what Ari Fliecher said. That is NOT proof that there was a surplus! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Fiscal Year End Total Debt
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

Where is the surplus?



With the debt never once going down in any given year during the Clinton administration, where is the surplus?

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion




Like I said, it's been debunked. Quit saying it's true.

No it wasn't debunked at all. Slick Willie won the day when he redefined the word "deficit". It's the same day he redefined the word "is". LOL.
 
Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees with you. They ordered the EPA to enforce the law.

The law already on the books is the Clean Air Act.

CO2 emissions are a public safety issue. Despite what coal shills like Inhof say.

You keep revealing your total ignorance on this subject with every post...
It's not ignorance, SCOTUS decision wasn't unanimous like I said earlier therefor there is questions in the decision. These states also brought a suit against the EPA which mean they had a case, unlike yourself I disagree with SCOTUS and I am not a blind follower such as you have shown to be. SCOTUS only won that case because there where those who are sympathetic to the EPA's cause. Constitutionally speaking I am talking about the law that passed but who decided to make law and enforce it, which was unconstitutional. So that being the case, the law is not constitutional. SCOTUS totally over looked the EPA being appointed by Nixon, and the constitution is very clear in regards to this. BTW lower courts are my favor and being insulted from someone on the left coast really carries no weight.
 
It's not ignorance, SCOTUS decision wasn't unanimous like I said earlier therefor there is questions in the decision. These states also brought a suit against the EPA which mean they had a case, unlike yourself I disagree with SCOTUS and I am not a blind follower such as you have shown to be. SCOTUS only won that case because there where those who are sympathetic to the EPA's cause. Constitutionally speaking I am talking about the law that passed but who decided to make law and enforce it, which was unconstitutional. So that being the case, the law is not constitutional. SCOTUS totally over looked the EPA being appointed by Nixon, and the constitution is very clear in regards to this. BTW lower courts are my favor and being insulted from someone on the left coast really carries no weight.

It might have been a 5-4 ruling, but it clearly came from a Conservative, Bush Supreme Court, which means that it is going to be very tough to overturn. For those interested, here is a history of "Massachusetts v. EPA"
 
I don't give a damn what Ari Fliecher said. That is NOT proof that there was a surplus! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Fiscal Year End Total Debt
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

Where is the surplus?



With the debt never once going down in any given year during the Clinton administration, where is the surplus?

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion




Like I said, it's been debunked. Quit saying it's true.

Why would you define surplus as "reduction in total debt?" Surplus and deficit have to do with cash flows. It is undoubtedly true that the federal government spent less money than it brought in with tax revenues during the latter part of the 90's/early 2000's. What you are showing is that total liabilities went up, specifically liabilities to other programs within the government. Thank you for successfully confusing everyone.
 
It might have been a 5-4 ruling, but it clearly came from a Conservative, Bush Supreme Court, which means that it is going to be very tough to overturn. For those interested, here is a history of "Massachusetts v. EPA"
Yes I understand decision and I understand it's now law solely because of the make up of SCOTUS but, this doesn't make it constitutional because SCOTUS says so, I have no idea why we think this court is packed with Gods. If this was about abortion and we packed the courts with right wing judges the left would be screaming from every hill top. My point being is we should have consistency and we don't, why ...because the constitution is dead. Whatever cause on one side or the other supports, if the constitution gets in the way, we are willing to give up our rights so it may pass.
 
Yes I understand decision and I understand it's now law solely because of the make up of SCOTUS but, this doesn't make it constitutional because SCOTUS says so, I have no idea why we think this court is packed with Gods. If this was about abortion and we packed the courts with right wing judges the left would be screaming from every hill top. My point being is we should have consistency and we don't, why ...because the constitution is dead. Whatever cause on one side or the other supports, if the constitution gets in the way, we are willing to give up our rights so it may pass.

The FED is also law, but it isn't Constitutional either. LOL.
 
Why would you define surplus as "reduction in total debt?" Surplus and deficit have to do with cash flows. It is undoubtedly true that the federal government spent less money than it brought in with tax revenues during the latter part of the 90's/early 2000's. What you are showing is that total liabilities went up, specifically liabilities to other programs within the government. Thank you for successfully confusing everyone.

Fact is that if debt goes up then nothing is achieved. Currently (or even during clintons time) debt needed to go down. It didn't. Now our great great great great grandchildren will still be paying for OUR expenses. Seperating the deficit from the debt is what is called a "rope a dope" in boxing terms. At least imo.
 
The Environmental Protection Agency is desperate for some friends in the Senate.

Republicans have made unraveling the Obama administration’s climate rules one of their top priorities this year, and with the GOP-led House expected to easily pass a measure to handcuff EPA’s authority, the rules’ fate may be determined by how hard the agency’s champions in the Senate will fight.

At least 56 senators — just four short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — will most likely support measures to hamstring climate rules, and an additional eight votes may be in play this Congress, a POLITICO analysis shows.

For EPA, climate tough in Senate - Robin Bravender - POLITICO.com

they're led by senator rockefeller from west virginia

do you know the great grandson of john david and nephew of nelson?

senator rockefeller is one of the most progressive voices in reid's roundhouse, he was probably msnbc's most frequent senate guest during the obamacare wars, proud proponent of the public option (ron wyden from oregon was another strong advocate, while anthony i-wanna-waiver weiner was the most persistent pugilist for the po in pelosi's place)

kent conrad from dakota, budget chair and right hand man to the gatekeeper, max baucus, was probably the democrat most responsible for killing the po

fyi

anyway, rockefeller has real umbrage against epa, it's all about the appalachian state

bobby byrd staunchly opposed cap and trade, joe manchin put a bullet thru it

a number of you don't know what you're talking about, which is fine

have fun

John Rockefeller takes aim at EPA - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

Democrat seeks to force climate rule vote - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

John Rockefeller aims to block EPA rules - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

'Brown Dogs' complicate climate plan - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

others to watch are mccaskill, sherrod brown, conrad, tester, stabenow, klobuchar, casey, alaska's begich, baucus and ultra lib levin

west virginian nick rahall, 18 term former chair of house resources, is the brown dog leader downstairs, but he's not really needed in boehner's bailiwick

with all due respect, if you linked more you'd be forced to read, then you might know what's going on BEFORE you click and submit

stay up
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom