Should this surprise anyone?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

According to the report — set for release Thursday by U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the nation’s finances, offering tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in fresh borrowing.

 

And this doesn't even include Romneys giant 20% across the board tax cuts.

 

 

Yes, these people are real serious, ha ha ha

[Adam]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

 

 

And this doesn't even include Romneys giant 20% across the board tax cuts.

 

 

Yes, these people are real serious, ha ha ha

Either side can run deficits, as everybody wants what they want. Very easy to fall into that trap and think you need more than you can afford.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

 

 

And this doesn't even include Romneys giant 20% across the board tax cuts.

 

 

Yes, these people are real serious, ha ha ha

 

 

So, they say by 2021 Gingrich would add 7 trillion to the debt, Santorum 4.5 trillion and Romney 2.6 trillion. Whether you believe it or not, how do you think that compares to the debt Obama is and would create? Now be realistic. Go by past record.

[B-Man]

No.

 

No one is suprised that the projections of the proposed plans of the possible GOP candidates are presented as some type of important insight.

 

 

Here in the actual, real world we're still waiting for the Democratic controlled senate to pass any budget or for the President to propose less than a trillion dollar deficit annual budget.

 

 

Sorry.......I can't work up a ha ha ha for what situation we are really in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 24, 2012 by B-Man

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No.

 

No one is suprised that the projections of the proposed plans of the possible GOP candidates are presented as some type of important insight.

 

 

Here in the actual, real world we're still waiting for the Democratic controlled senate to pass any budget or for the President to propose less than a trillion dollar deficit annual budget.

 

 

Sorry.......I can't work up a ha ha ha for what situation we are really in.

 

 

.

You are just ignorant. Were you really young in 2000? Bush said his plans wouldn't bust the budget with his tax cuts either.

 

 

It's also funny that you are counting on the Dem congress to stop your Republican madness

[3rdnlng]

You are just ignorant. Were you really young in 2000? Bush said his plans wouldn't bust the budget with his tax cuts either.

 

 

It's also funny that you are counting on the Dem congress to stop your Republican madness

 

 

Question for you Davey:

 

What does 1.3 trillion x 9 equal?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

So, they say by 2021 Gingrich would add 7 trillion to the debt, Santorum 4.5 trillion and Romney 2.6 trillion. Whether you believe it or not, how do you think that compares to the debt Obama is and would create? Now be realistic. Go by past record.

Obama would have a lot less debt, no doubt. Heck, if Romney gets his 20% insanity passed, it would explode the debt.

[DC Tom]

Obama would have a lot less debt, no doubt. Heck, if Romney gets his 20% insanity passed, it would explode the debt.

 

You would have to put thought into that statement for it to rise to the level of "unbelievably stupid".

 

Really...what the !@#$ is wrong with you? Do you ever think before you post?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You would have to put thought into that statement for it to rise to the level of "unbelievably stupid".

 

Really...what the !@#$ is wrong with you? Do you ever think before you post?

Where am I wrong?

[Magox]

Where am I wrong?

Well lets see here, you have 1349 posts, I would say look back at your posting history and just pick any one of them.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Well lets see here, you have 1349 posts, I would say look back at your posting history and just pick any one of them.

Let's see, the republicans want to cut taxes again, including for the wealthy, and won't point out how they are going to pay for it.

 

Just like they always do

 

 

Obama will cut nothing, maybe the military, but will raise taxes

 

 

 

Ok, who will have bigger deficits?

 

 

Even a moron like you could figure that out....I guess

[DC Tom]

Where am I wrong?

 

Ummmm...everywhere?

 

How about, instead of pulling a statement out of your ass and pretending it's fact, you spend five minutes looking up the deficit projections for Obama's spending plans out to 2011? The CBO projects that, under current plans, the national debt will increase by between nine and twelve trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf, page 124.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22087

 

And that was their optimistic scenario, where the Bush tax cuts weren't extended and spending stayed the same. Since the tax cuts were extended...hard to find number, but based on the below, it looks like you can add another $2-3 trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf

[B-Man]

Contraception Misdirection :A universal birth-control mandate is a curious priority for a dying republic.

By Mark Steyn

 

Have you seen the official White House version of what the New York Times headline writers call “A Responsible Budget”? My favorite bit is Chart 5-1 on page 58 of their 500-page appendix on “Analytical Perspectives.” This is entitled “Publicly Held Debt Under 2013 Budget Policy Projections.” It’s a straight line going straight up before disappearing off the top right-hand corner of the graph in the year 2084 and continuing northeast straight through your eye socket, out the back of your skull, and zooming up to rendezvous with Newt’s space colony on the moon circa 2100. Just to emphasize, this isn’t the doom-laden dystopian fancy of a right-wing apocalyptic loon like me; it’s the official Oval Office version of where America’s headed. In the New York Times–approved “responsible budget” there is no attempt even to pretend to bend the debt curve into something approaching reentry with reality.

 

As for us doom-mongers, at the House Budget Committee on Thursday, Chairman Paul Ryan produced another chart, this time from the Congressional Budget Office, with an even steeper straight line showing debt rising to 900 percent of GDP and rocketing off the graph circa 2075. America’s treasury secretary, Timmy Geithner the TurboTax Kid, thought the chart would have been even more hilarious if they’d run the numbers into the next millennium: “You could have taken it out to 3000 or to 4000” he chortled, to supportive titters from his aides. Has total societal collapse ever been such a non-stop laugh riot?

 

 

“Yeah, right.” replied Ryan. “We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.”

 

The U.S. economy shuts down in 2027? Had you heard about that? It’s like the ultimate Presidents’ Day sale: Everything must go — literally! At such a moment, it may seem odd to find the political class embroiled in a bitter argument about the Obama administration’s determination to force Catholic institutions (and, indeed, my company and your company, if you’re foolish enough still to be in business in the United States) to provide free prophylactics to their employees. The received wisdom among media cynics is that Obama has engaged in an ingenious bit of misdirection by seizing on a pop-culture caricature of Republicans and inviting them to live up to it: Those uptight squares with the hang-ups about fornication have decided to force you to lead the same cheerless sex lives as them. I notice that in their coverage NPR and the evening news shows generally refer to the controversy as being about “contraception,” discreetly avoiding mention of sterilization and pharmacological abortion, as if the GOP have finally jumped the shark in order to prevent you jumping anything at all.

 

It may well be that the Democrats succeed in establishing this narrative. But anyone who falls for it is a sap. In fact, these two issues — the Obama condoms-for-clunkers giveaway and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 900 percent by 2075 — are not unconnected. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren — i.e., an upside-down family tree. As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, “If 100 geezers run up a bazillion dollars’ worth of debt, is it likely that 42 youngsters will ever be able to pay it off?” Most analysts know the answer to that question: Greece is demographically insolvent. So it’s looking to Germany to continue bankrolling its First World lifestyle.

 

But the Germans are also demographically exhausted: They have the highest proportion of childless women in Europe. One in three fräulein have checked out of the motherhood business entirely. A nation that did without having kids of its own is in no mood to maintain Greece as the ingrate slacker who never moves out of the house. As the European debt crisis staggers on, these two countries loathe each other ever more nakedly: The Greek president brings up his war record against the German bullies, and Athenian commentators warn of the new Fourth Reich. The Germans, for their part, would rather cut the Greeks loose. In a post-prosperity West, social solidarity — i.e., socioeconomic fictions such as “Europe” — are the first to disappear.

 

The United States faces a mildly less daunting arithmetic. Nevertheless, the Baby Boomers did not have enough children to maintain mid-20th-century social programs. As a result, the children they did have will end their lives in a poorer, uglier, sicker, more divided, and more violent society. How to avert this fate? In 2009 Nancy Pelosi called for free contraceptives as a form of economic stimulus. Ten thousand Americans retire every day, and leave insufficient progeny to pick up the slack. In effect, Nancy has rolled a giant condom over the entire American economy.

 

Testifying before Congress, Timmy Geithner referred only to “demographic challenges” — an oblique allusion to the fact that the U.S. economy is about to be terminally clobbered by $100 trillion of entitlement obligations it can never meet. And, as Chart 5-1 on page 58 of the official Obama budget “Analytical Perspectives” makes plain, your feckless, decadent rulers have no plans to do anything about it. Instead, the Democrats shriek, Ooh, Republican prudes who can’t get any action want to shut down your sex life! According to CBO projections, by mid-century mere interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues. For purposes of comparison, by 1788 Louis XVI’s government in France was spending a mere 60 percent of revenues on debt service, and we know how that worked out for His Majesty shortly thereafter. Not to worry, says Barry Antoinette. Let them eat condoms.

 

This is a very curious priority for a dying republic. “Birth control” is accessible, indeed ubiquitous, and, by comparison with anything from a gallon of gas to basic cable, one of the cheapest expenses in the average budget. Not even Rick Santorum, that notorious scourge of the sexually liberated, wishes to restrain the individual right to contraception.

 

{snip}

 

Americans foolish enough to fall for the Democrats’ crude bit of misdirection can hardly complain about their rendezvous with the sharp end of that page-58 budget graph. People are free to buy bacon, and free to buy condoms. But the state has no compelling interest to force either down your throat. The notion that an all-powerful government would distract from its looming bankruptcy by introducing a universal contraceptive mandate would strike most novelists as almost too pat in its symbolism. It’s like something out of Brave New World. Except that it’s cowardly, and, like so much else about the sexual revolution, very old and wrinkled.

 

 

 

Mark Steyn

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Ummmm...everywhere?

 

How about, instead of pulling a statement out of your ass and pretending it's fact, you spend five minutes looking up the deficit projections for Obama's spending plans out to 2011? The CBO projects that, under current plans, the national debt will increase by between nine and twelve trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf, page 124.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22087

 

And that was their optimistic scenario, where the Bush tax cuts weren't extended and spending stayed the same. Since the tax cuts were extended...hard to find number, but based on the below, it looks like you can add another $2-3 trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf

 

I would argue, though, that the CBO projections will change also depending on the direction of the economy. If the economy gets worse, which I think it will do before it gets better, add even more to that 12 trillion. If, for some reason, it gets better I think we'll see a for less steep increase in our debt.

[Magox]

DiN, Why should anyone provide anything to you? You hate facts and are incapable of reason.

 

I need to follow my sig. more often

 

I would argue, though, that the CBO projections will change also depending on the direction of the economy. If the economy gets worse, which I think it will do before it gets better, add even more to that 12 trillion. If, for some reason, it gets better I think we'll see a for less steep increase in our debt.

Why should anyone believe that? Every projection the presidents team has ever come up with has always missed the mark by a long shot.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Magox

[DC Tom]

I would argue, though, that the CBO projections will change also depending on the direction of the economy. If the economy gets worse, which I think it will do before it gets better, add even more to that 12 trillion. If, for some reason, it gets better I think we'll see a for less steep increase in our debt.

 

No doubt. But then, so will the projections of the Republican candidates' plans.

 

I'm arguing against DiN's asinine comparison, not that the CBO's in any way forecasts accurately.

[/dev/null]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

 

...

 

Only Paul emerged as a fiscal conservative in the report. His policies would cut tax revenue by more than $5 trillion over the next decade, the report said, but the loss would be offset by more than $7 trillion in spending cuts, including deep reductions in defense and federal health programs.

 

What does 1.3 trillion x 9 equal?

 

About tree-fiddy

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Ummmm...everywhere?

 

How about, instead of pulling a statement out of your ass and pretending it's fact, you spend five minutes looking up the deficit projections for Obama's spending plans out to 2011? The CBO projects that, under current plans, the national debt will increase by between nine and twelve trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf, page 124.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22087

 

And that was their optimistic scenario, where the Bush tax cuts weren't extended and spending stayed the same. Since the tax cuts were extended...hard to find number, but based on the below, it looks like you can add another $2-3 trillion by 2021.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf

No way. There is no way Obama's budgets will be worse than the Republicans. If you wack tax revenue coming into the government the budgets will simply increase. Reagan and Bush already proved that. I'll simply let history be my guide on that point. You acn appreaciate that, can't you Professor Military Historian?

[DC Tom]

No way. There is no way Obama's budgets will be worse than the Republicans. If you wack tax revenue coming into the government the budgets will simply increase. Reagan and Bush already proved that. I'll simply let history be my guide on that point. You acn appreaciate that, can't you Professor Military Historian?

 

Obama's budgets are already worse than any Republican's, by any measure you care to name. If you were letting history be your guide, you'd agree with me, you pinhead.

[3rdnlng]

No way. There is no way Obama's budgets will be worse than the Republicans. If you wack tax revenue coming into the government the budgets will simply increase. Reagan and Bush already proved that. I'll simply let history be my guide on that point. You acn appreaciate that, can't you Professor Military Historian?

 

 

What does 1.3 trillion x 9 equal?

Edited February 24, 2012 by 3rdnlng