• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
pbrauer said:
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never in the budget.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, do you understand that budget doesn't mean spending? Budgets are a guideline not actual dollars spent. Every dollar for the wars is included in the yearly deficits. You are right, they weren't part of the budget but they WERE PART OF THE DEFICIT.
 
Harshaw said:
Karl said:
Harshaw said:
Yes, and prior to the recession, the deficit was on track and projected to disappear, and surpluses reappear, all with the "warz" and the tax cuts intact. [...]
Click to expand...
Uh huh :lamo
Click to expand...
Laugh all you want, but it was. The deficit was trending down (I even quoted the figures in my post), and the CBO projected surpluses by 2012, running out to at least 2017, based on then-current data.

So, indeed, laugh, but it's the laughter of willful ignorance and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Speaking of ignorance, let's examine that issue.

Your claim: "all with the "warz" [...] intact".
Your source, dated January 2007, claims: "The projection for discretionary spending implicitly assumes that no additional funding is provided for the war in Iraq in 2007" (PDF page 13). Further in the report it envisions much lower Iraq/Afghanistan troop levels by 2010 than were actually achieved (30,000, with as little as 75,000 being 'over budget'). (PDF page 89).

Your claim: "all with the [...] tax cuts intact."
Your source claims: "Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and then remain near that historically high level through 2017. Much of that increase results from [the Bush tax cuts] which are scheduled to expire by December 31, 2010." (also PDF page 13).

Clearly, both of your claims are contradicted by the source you present as proof of your claims. Around here we call that Epic Fail :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Good Lord, do you understand that budget doesn't mean spending? Budgets are a guideline not actual dollars spent. Every dollar for the wars is included in the yearly deficits. You are right, they weren't part of the budget but they WERE PART OF THE DEFICIT.
Click to expand...
Wrong!! The deficit is the difference between the budget and the actual spent for those line items only. The debt is the summation of the deficit and all appropriations not in the budget. Bush never put the cost of the wars in his budget because it made his deficit look better than they actually where.
 
pbrauer said:
Wrong!! The deficit is the difference between the budget and the actual spent for those line items only. The debt is the summation of the deficit and all appropriations not in the budget. Bush never put the cost of the wars in his budget because it made his deficit look better than they actually where.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the deficit is expenses minus revenues regardless of the budget. you don't seem to have a clue.
 
Conservative said:
Good Lord, do you understand that budget doesn't mean spending? Budgets are a guideline not actual dollars spent. Every dollar for the wars is included in the yearly deficits. You are right, they weren't part of the budget but they WERE PART OF THE DEFICIT.
Click to expand...
Good Lord, do you not understand that items are 'hidden' off budget in order to make the budget look better to simpletons?

And that Obama promised to halt (or at least lessen, it seems) that practice?

And therefore that simply comparing Bush and Obama budgets is akin to comparing apples and oranges?

So that the smart kids look at the annual increase in the total public debt as a true measure of what went on in Washington DC for any particular fiscal year?

While the short bus kids go 'well, golly gee, this here budget sure is better than that there budget, yuk yuk yuk'.
 
Karl said:
Good Lord, do you not understand that items are 'hidden' off budget in order to make the budget look better to simpletons?

And that Obama promised to halt (or at least lessen, it seems) that practice?

And therefore that simply comparing Bush and Obama budgets is akin to comparing apples and oranges?

So that the smart kids look at the annual increase in the total public debt as a true measure of what went on in Washington DC for any particular fiscal year?

While the short bus kids go 'well, golly gee, this here budget sure is better than that there budget, yuk yuk yuk'.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the smart kids don't buy into that whole 'myth' of the Clinton surplus. White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.

Would love to have some of what you're smoking. :eek:
 
Karl said:
Good Lord, do you not understand that items are 'hidden' off budget in order to make the budget look better to simpletons?

And that Obama promised to halt (or at least lessen, it seems) that practice?

And therefore that simply comparing Bush and Obama budgets is akin to comparing apples and oranges?

So that the smart kids look at the annual increase in the total public debt as a true measure of what went on in Washington DC for any particular fiscal year?

While the short bus kids go 'well, golly gee, this here budget sure is better than that there budget, yuk yuk yuk'.
Click to expand...

Absolutely they are indeed hidden on the budget but NOT on the deficits. The deficits are what they are total spending minus total revenue.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Glad to hear the smart kids don't buy into that whole 'myth' of the Clinton surplus. [...]
Click to expand...
Quite true... Clinton got close, but no cigar (if you'll pardon the pun ;) ).
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely they are indeed hidden on the budget but NOT on the deficits. The deficits are what they are total spending minus total revenue.
Click to expand...
Glad you finally came around. Well done :)
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Glad to hear the smart kids don't buy into that whole 'myth' of the Clinton surplus. White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.

Would love to have some of what you're smoking. :eek:
Click to expand...

Since you brought up Clinton please give examples of what what you mean.
 
Karl said:
Quite true... Clinton got close, but no cigar (if you'll pardon the pun ;) ).
Click to expand...


I, at least, appreciate your consistency.
 
winston53660 said:
Since you brought up Clinton please give examples of what what you mean.
Click to expand...

Karl was looking at treasury receipts of total debt outstanding to determine yoy deficits. I told him that if he prefers that method he would have to acknowledge that there was no surplus (decrease in total debt outstanding) in 1999/2000.
 
Karl said:
I just wanted the poster to show some respect for others by sourcing his data :cool:
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with respect, but I'll keep it in mind for you. I figured deficit/spending totals were undisputed and easy to find. :shrug:
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
[...] White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.
Click to expand...
Off budget is mostly the Social Security Trust Fund receipts. That surplus will probably be drying up over the next decade (at which time a new round of borrowing will likely begin in order to redeem those bonds).
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Karl was looking at treasury receipts of total debt outstanding to determine yoy deficits. I told him that if he prefers that method he would have to acknowledge that there was no surplus (decrease in total debt outstanding) in 1999/2000.
Click to expand...

Okay fair enough.

Most people miss that spending came in line revenue during that time period.
 
Karl said:
Speaking of ignorance, let's examine that issue.

Your claim: "all with the "warz" [...] intact".
Your source, dated January 2007, claims: "The projection for discretionary spending implicitly assumes that no additional funding is provided for the war in Iraq in 2007" (PDF page 13).
Click to expand...

Gosh, whysoever did you leave the rest of the sentence off?

and that future appropriations for activities related to the war on terrorism remain equivalent, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, to the $70 billion appropriated so far this year.
Click to expand...

Could it be that you wanted to make it seem that all funding for the war would be ended? Or did you simply stop reading when you found something you thought you could use?

All that it means is that it figured spending wouldn't be INCREASED. I said "intact," not "escalated" -- as in, continuing as it was.

Further in the report it envisions much lower Iraq/Afghanistan troop levels by 2010 than were actually achieved (30,000, with as little as 75,000 being 'over budget'). (PDF page 89).
Click to expand...

Sure. After the Obama surge. And I said it was based on then-current assumptions, quite specifically.

Your claim: "all with the [...] tax cuts intact."
Your source claims: "Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and then remain near that historically high level through 2017. Much of that increase results from [the Bush tax cuts] which are scheduled to expire by December 31, 2010." (also PDF page 13).
Click to expand...

Funny, THIS is what that paragraph says:

Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of
GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012
and then remain near that historically high level
through 2017. Much of that increase results from two
aspects of current law that have been subject to recent
policy changes: the growing impact of the alternative
minimum tax (AMT) and, even more significantly,
various provisions originally enacted in the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
(EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and modified by
subsequent legislation, which are scheduled to expire
by December 31, 2010.
Click to expand...

Which is a damn sight different than you present it.

That's twice. Once is an oversight or an accident. Twice is deliberate. You simply lied about what it said.


Clearly, both of your claims are contradicted by the source you present as proof of your claims. Around here we call that Epic Fail :2wave:
Click to expand...

I'm afraid not. The deficit was disappearing (as shown in the previous post) and projected to be eliminated by FY2011, which would be reached BEFORE the calendar expiration of the tax cuts (even if you had presented that portion honestly).

"Epic fail." Riiiight.
 
misterman said:
What's the source of this chart please? Anybody can just draw a chart.
Click to expand...

Why it comes from the ‘favored’ source here on DP:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the note:

Graph showing projected monthly U.S. Unemployment Rate with and without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the "Stimulus Package") versus the actual U.S. Unemployment Rate. The projected unemployment rate with and without ARRA 2009 is from President Barrack Obama's administration presented in January 2009 to justify the legislation: Romer, Christina; Bernstein, Jared (January 10, 2009), The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf). The actual unemployment rate is from the U.S. Labor Department.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
so how do you reckon they were moved out of the workforce?
Click to expand...

simple enough. they are no longer part of the "working population". functionally it works the same as when discouraged workers drop off the numbers.
 
Karl said:
Off budget is mostly the Social Security Trust Fund receipts. That surplus will probably be drying up over the next decade (at which time a new round of borrowing will likely begin in order to redeem those bonds).
Click to expand...


?

dude. SS started running a deficit last year.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Glad to hear the smart kids don't buy into that whole 'myth' of the Clinton surplus. White House data breaks the data into two tables, on-budget and off-budget. Off-budget runs a surplus every year.
Click to expand...

ON-budget ALSO runs a surplus though. Just FYI.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Karl was looking at treasury receipts of total debt outstanding to determine yoy deficits.
Click to expand...

Oh.

That's sounds like the convoluted way that Clinton surplus deniers do it.
 
Wiki is a horrible source.

As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia.

While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia -- while convenient -- may not be trustworthy.

"As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation," said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. "Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation," he said.

Read more: A Stand Against Wikipedia | Inside Higher Ed
Inside Higher Ed
Click to expand...


Wiki is a source that anyone can go in and change...Sorry, just not reliable...

Today's world is capable of sharing vast amounts of information at a rapid pace via the Internet. However, the accuracy of this information can be a serious question. Websites posing as genuine sources of knowledge or news are often serving their own hidden agenda under the guise of legitimacy. Nowhere is this more problematic than with the questionable process and ethics of Wikipedia.

At first glance, Wikipedia appears above board. Its clever name is a play on the word encyclopedia, implying an unimpeachable and unbiased compilation of information. But like other salacious websites, Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.

In fact, in its quest to make a profit and gain notoriety, Wikipedia appeases special interest influences by selectively presenting information that corresponds with their motivations. Wikipedia 'editors' spin these ideas to create a skewed version of reality that drastically varies on a day to day basis. To maintain this monopoly on misinformation, Wikipedia unilaterally determines when it has 'enough' content and "locks" it so that no other additional information - even powerful alternatives that prove inaccuracy - is considered to contest the fallacious version.

Wikipedia is Wrong
Click to expand...


clearly an unreliable source.


j-mac
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom