• 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!

Senator Mike Lee (Facebook Live) Explains our Spending Problem

Short version:

"Im mike lee, a conservative mormon who doesn't like the continuing resolution process created by conservative teabaggers in the house who can't get their act together enough to compromise on creating real budgets that have not happened since 2011....so i'm voting against the budget because it is a CR."

Circular, self defeating argument at its finest.
 
This video really explained our spending problem for me

Could you please explain it to me? I don't accept video assignments that aren't associated with some sort of commentary.
 
He talks about how the Senate bills operate. The bills are very lengthy with many different parts to it that could put the country into even bigger debt. The problem is that the Senate which is supposed to be a place where the reps have the opportunity to discuss the various parts of proposed law, is not functioning as such because the bills are thrown to at the senators and are called for a vote right after...
Could you please explain it to me? I don't accept video assignments that aren't associated with some sort of commentary.
 
Nopsie not Mike Lee.
 
The bills are very lengthy with many different parts to it

Yes, that chamber has long been known for its arcane practices. It's the nature of exclusive clubs.

>>could put the country into even bigger debt.

Well, spending fell eight percent in real dollars 2009-14 and it's still down from the level when the Negro took office. We're continuing to run a large deficit because the moneyed interests that control the gubmint continue to pay less in taxes than what would be best for the national economy.

>>The problem is that the Senate which is supposed to be a place where the reps have the opportunity to discuss the various parts of proposed law

On the floor? I'd say there's often a lot of "discussion." I figure the problem is that they typically don't want people to know what's really going on.

>>is not functioning as such because the bills are thrown to at the senators and are called for a vote right after

Hmm. I'd say it's not working as you described because the public wouldn't like a lot of what was being said. The leadership knows what's in the legislation and the members support the leadership. Claiming that "it's too complex" or "I didn't have time to read it" is imo just excuse-making.
 
Its just politics folks. Obama enjoyed a super majority his first 2 years in office. Normally the budget for a new president is passed in October of the previous year (e.g. Oct. 2008 a budget is passed for 2009). In this case Congress and George W. were at odds so no budget was passed in October 2008. Instead Obama passed a budget shortly after entering office in 2009 for 2009. This might have meant Obama ended up having 9 budget years instead of 8. During his 1st 2 years in office he passed 3 budgets all with record increases in tax rates, spending, and deficits (Obamacare). His budgets truly reflected his liberal policies of tax and spend. The Republicans did not have the numbers to stop him. Of course this naturally caused a backlash and in 2010 the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate and ended up losing control the House of Representatives.

In regards to our nations budget since 2011, 1 of 4 things could occur:
1. The President and the Congress can get together and pass a new budget to replace the old budget.
2. The Congress can override the President's veto and pass a new budget to replace the old budget (if they have the votes).
3. The Congress can agree on its own to keep the last agreed upon budget in place. This will keep spending at the same level it has been in previous years. This can be don't without approval of the President as the budget has been legally passed as the agreed upon spending level at some point in the past. It is referred to as a Continuing Resolution.
4. If none of the above 3 occur then the government shuts down and all non-essential workers are sent home.

Possibility 2 would not materialize because the Republicans (while in control) did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto. With #2 not a possibility and Obama's budget preferences already currently in place the remaining options for Obama were

1. negotiate away your previous budget preferences, (including Obamacare)
3. Keep your previous budget preferences,
4. Have the government shut down.

If the Republicans had stood their ground this would have heavily favored Obama. Why? Because in the past whenever there is an impasse on the budget the Media heavily favors the Democrats and places blame on the Republicans. Of course this is ludicrous. It is equivalent to saying I am willing to pay $5,000 for your car and your refuse to sell it for less than $10,000. So that means it's my fault no agreement was reached because I was only willing to pay $5,000. When two sides can't come to an agreement it is because one side, or the other, or both refuse to compromise. But the average citizen is too stupid to understand who is to blame and just follows along with what they are told be a MSM which is essentially just left of Karl Marx. In this case the responsibility for the impasse was squarely with Obama for the simple reason he had nothing to gain from a budget agreement. He either got to keep his budget or if the Republicans stood their ground and shut down the government he would win that way when the outrage of all the government workers was placed on the Republicans by the MSM. This situation continues to this day as the Republicans have expanded their seats. The budget has remained fixed for 6 years now and may continue if Hillary gets elected and the Republicans maintain control of the Senate or the House. Essentially this will result in a balanced budget because if you keep spending fixed inflation will erode the actual buying power of those dollars. This is EXACTLY what happened in 1998 under Clinton to balance the budget. Clinton DID NOT BALANCE THE BUDGET. The budget was balanced by the Republicans in Congress IN SPITE OF BILL CLINTON's refusal to negotiate a budget. They did it with continuing resolutions year after year until it finally balanced itself due to inflation. If you look at the numbers this can clearly be seen as a gradual decrease in the deficit to GDP ratio.
 
Its just politics folks.

Politics are indeed a big part of the federal budgeting process.

>>Obama enjoyed a super majority his first 2 years in office.

"Supermajority," in this context, typically refers to control of the House and sixty votes in the Senate. Democrats had sixty votes most of the time from Jul 2009 through Jan 2010, six of those seven months.

>>Oct. 2008 … Congress and George W. were at odds so no budget was passed in October 2008. Instead Obama passed a budget shortly after entering office in 2009 for 2009.

Just about all of the 2008 budget was contained in the eventual outlays, all but about $250-450 billion. The deficit that year was more than $1.4 trillion.

The added expenditures were required as a response to the highly destructive GOP SSE Great Recession. The Right, with its massive and unproductive tax cut giveaways to fat cats, its dangerous and irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector, and its reckless and expensive overseas military misadventure, put the economy in the hospital. Obummer was left to pay the bill, and you wanna blame him for it. It's not a coincidence that yer so laughably misinformed about one issue after another.

>>This might have meant Obama ended up having 9 budget years instead of 8.

Yer effectively saying "nine might be eight." Nah, nine is never eight.

>>During his 1st 2 years in office he passed 3 budgets all with record increases in tax rates, spending, and deficits (Obamacare).

Like all presidents, the Negro raised some taxes and cut others. In his first two years, the net effect of his tax policy was a large tax cut, larger than the cutting 43 did in his first two years. Some was contained in the ARRA — hundreds of billions of dollars in reductions. Then the Dec 2010 tax deal (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act) contained another $400 billion in tax cuts.

Spending in real dollars fell eight percent 2009-14. Very large deficits continued until 2012. It's now down by about two-thirds.

>>His budgets truly reflected his liberal policies of tax and spend.

He raised taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products to pay for the Children's Health Insurance program (costs about $14B annually) and through the individual mandate for health insurance — the penalty that was originally set to be $700-2000 by this year. In 2013, Medicare taxes went up on households collecting incomes above $250K. Through the ACA, we get additional revenues from health insurance companies and prescription drug manufacturers. The increase associated with so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans has again been delayed, this time until 2020.

>>The Republicans did not have the numbers to stop him.

They've had the House and plenty of votes in the Senate.

>>Of course this naturally caused a backlash and in 2010 the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate and ended up losing control the House of Representatives.

The "this" you describe never occurred. We lost the Congress as the result of a fairly widespread epidemic of Teabugger fever brought on by repeated exposure to a lazy, shiftless, lying, America-hating, commie witch doctor, terrorist sympathiser, constitutionally illegitimate POTUS. I'm hoping Ryan's speakership will spread enough disinfectant to adequately suppress the current outbreak of ignorant, know-nothing, RW hysteria. Ya say ya want the country back? We'll here's the thing — ya ain't gettin' it back. And if ya don't like it, TFB. Progress will crush you like a bug.

>>The Congress can agree on its own to keep the last agreed upon budget in place. … This can be don't without approval of the President as the budget has been legally passed as the agreed upon spending level at some point in the past.

If Congress does not complete action on an appropriations bill before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, it must pass, and the President must sign, a continuing resolution (CR) to provide stopgap funding for affected agencies and discretionary programs. (source)​

>>When two sides can't come to an agreement it is because one side, or the other, or both refuse to compromise.

And a majority of the American electorate recognises that the Republicans have been the ones who didn't/couldn't compromise. RW nuts controlled the caucus.

>>But the average citizen is too stupid to understand who is to blame

Some people are too stupid, I'll agree to that.

>>the impasse was squarely with Obama for the simple reason he had nothing to gain from a budget agreement.

Whining about media bias is a loser's lament.
 
This is EXACTLY what happened in 1998 under Clinton to balance the budget. … They did it with continuing resolutions year after year until it finally balanced itself due to inflation.

How did he do it? Clinton isn't shy about explaining what happened on his watch. The budget deals he made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993.

Voting to raise taxes on the rich was the crucial step toward fiscal responsibility and a long period of high employment, national prosperity and international prestige. There is no other way to stabilize the budget without inflicting grave damage on our future.(source)​

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits (source)​

>>If you look at the numbers this can clearly be seen as a gradual decrease in the deficit to GDP ratio.

Look at the numbers you've been lying about.

Real spending was up 12.6% 1883-2001. Receipts expanded by 47%.
 
How did he do it? Clinton isn't shy about explaining what happened on his watch. The budget deals he made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993.

Voting to raise taxes on the rich was the crucial step toward fiscal responsibility and a long period of high employment, national prosperity and international prestige. There is no other way to stabilize the budget without inflicting grave damage on our future.(source)​

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits (source)​

>>If you look at the numbers this can clearly be seen as a gradual decrease in the deficit to GDP ratio.

Look at the numbers you've been lying about.

Real spending was up 12.6% 1883-2001. Receipts expanded by 47%.

Debt rose as a result of the tax rate and spending increases in 1993 under Bill Clinton and the Democrats. The CBO an the Clinton administration itself predicted budget deficits in excess of 250 Billion as far as the eye could see even after gutting defense spending. In 1994 the Republicans under Newt Gingrich came in and pushed through reforms designed to balance the budget in 7 years. Bill Clinton said it couldn't be done and fought them every step of the way. The Republicans were in charge with super majorities in both houses. The Democrats had lost so many seats due to Clinton's record low approval ratings the few Democrats who remained didn't even support him. The Republicans got their way and not only balanced the budget in spite of Bill Clinton they did it in 4 years not 7. Bill Clinton was present in 1998 when the Republicans balanced the budget. But being present was about all he did other than attempt to prevent the Republicans from fulfilling their promise in the Contract With America. In 1995 Bill Clinton admitted "balancing the budget is not even one of our priorities". "Crediting Clinton for balancing the budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for Mark McGuire's home run record because he delivered the pitch McGuire hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.": Tom Delay
 
Debt rose as a result of the tax rate and spending increases in 1993 under Bill Clinton and the Democrats. The CBO an the Clinton administration itself predicted budget deficits in excess of 250 Billion as far as the eye could see even after gutting defense spending. In 1994 the Republicans under Newt Gingrich came in and pushed through reforms designed to balance the budget in 7 years. Bill Clinton said it couldn't be done and fought them every step of the way. The Republicans were in charge with super majorities in both houses. The Democrats had lost so many seats due to Clinton's record low approval ratings the few Democrats who remained didn't even support him. The Republicans got their way and not only balanced the budget in spite of Bill Clinton they did it in 4 years not 7. Bill Clinton was present in 1998 when the Republicans balanced the budget. But being present was about all he did other than attempt to prevent the Republicans from fulfilling their promise in the Contract With America. In 1995 Bill Clinton admitted "balancing the budget is not even one of our priorities". "Crediting Clinton for balancing the budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for Mark McGuire's home run record because he delivered the pitch McGuire hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.": Tom Delay

fredgraph.png


The data shows that revenue increased by $951 billion between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 2001.
 
How did he do it? Clinton isn't shy about explaining what happened on his watch. The budget deals he made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993.

Voting to raise taxes on the rich was the crucial step toward fiscal responsibility and a long period of high employment, national prosperity and international prestige. There is no other way to stabilize the budget without inflicting grave damage on our future.(source)​

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits (source)​

>>If you look at the numbers this can clearly be seen as a gradual decrease in the deficit to GDP ratio.

Look at the numbers you've been lying about.

Real spending was up 12.6% 1883-2001. Receipts expanded by 47%.

Lol ! Clinton lowered Capital Gains taxes. How did you miss that when you decided to tell us about his " signifigant tax increases on the Rich " ?

Inconvienent truth ?
 
Clinton lowered Capital Gains taxes.

Yes, and associated revenues more than tripled, from about $36B to $127B 1994-2000. You'll notice that the economy, and in particular the stock market, performed very well during that period. Yer saying the tax cut generated that revenue. I figure it was other factors.

The average effective rate on capital gains in 1994 was 23.6%. By 1996, it had risen to 25.5%, with receipts nearly doubling to $66B. It then fell to 19.6 in 1998, and we collected $89B. The rate inched up over the following two years (20.2 and 19.8), while revenue continued to climb (112 and 127).

The average effective rate then dropped steadily to 14.7 in 2004, … and collections fell sharply (66, 51, 49, 73). Looks to me like the tax rate didn't play a major role in determining receipts. The rate was 14.8 in 2007 and 13.9 in 2009 — revenues fell from $137B to $37B. (source)

>>How did you miss that when you decided to tell us about his " signifigant tax increases on the Rich"?

The excerpts I posted cited those factors that played a significant role in determining Uncle Sam's take. Yer focus on capital gains doesn't fit in that category.

>>Inconvienent truth ?

No, more of yer uninformed and misleading nonsense. See the pattern?
 
Back
Top Bottom