In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
The place for discussion on the NFL
The place for discussion on college baseball
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
About 10 trillion of the 16 Trillion falls to Dem administrations. It was a bipartisan effort but the Dem Presidents bear the burden.
However party lines aside it is Bush and Obama that bear the vast majority of it all by themselves. The two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in American history.
It is also fair to blame the Dems now because they are the only party that doesn't even acknowledge it is a problem and has absolutely no intention of correcting it at all.
Obviously. Bush or RR (who started this whole mess) have no say in the current debt of the US.
But we can use those administrations to point out the obvious hypocrisy. No one was screaming deficit when RR blew them up. No one screamed deficit during the Bush years, but the day Obama gets elected the country is spending at an out of control rate?
My BS meter is going off.
They have offered plenty of specifics through budgets etc. granted there was a lot of vagueness in those plans too because if the elections approaching, but they have certainly offered much more than the Democrats.
Source. Exact numbers please.
And if the first three words of your source are '5 point plan', I'm going to die laughing.
We'll be 20 trillion in debt by the time Obama leaves office. And that 2019 crap is BS and we all know it.
Show me where Mitt Romney laid out specific spending cuts that would've covered even 50% of his proposed tax cuts.
The GOP has presented multiple budgets over the past couple of years. The Dems have presented none.
What the hell does Romney have to do with anything? Dude has no say so in our governing process at all, never has at the federal level. He was just as vague as his adversary and any other person running for president.
The aggregate debt matters.
The CBO is almost always on the low end of projections. They consistently underestimate the growth rate of government programs, and rate of Congress's spending both of which are impossible to predict.
You said GOP presidential candidates have offered "plenty of specifics" - I contend that they haven't. If they have, you should be able to show me where those offsets were in Romney's plan.
Probably the American Enterprise Institute.
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
I said the GOP.
The CBO is nothing more than a human calculator it can only put out what you put in. Since politicians always put in made up numbers, always on the low end as far as cost of course, you get projections based off those BS numbers. That's all the CBO does.
Ah, alright, then I'll ask about the GOP.
In Boehner's counter-offer during the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, this is what he proposed:
"$800 billion in unspecified "pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates."
$600 billion in Medicare savings that would include raising the eligibility age and "structural Medicare reform." That may be a euphemistic reference to Rep. Paul Ryan's voucher ("coupon care") system, but it's not clear from the information available if that's the case.
$300 billion in other "mandatory" savings, including farm subsidies and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food subsidies to low- and no-income Americans. No further details on these proposed cuts are available.
$200 billion through lowering the cost of living adjustments for all federal beneficiaries, including Social Security recipients. This is the "chained CPI" we've been hearing about for the past year and a half that would cut benefits over time.
$300 billion in further unspecified cuts to discretionary spending."
Do you see how few specifics there are here? If you can show me anywhere where the GOP clarified these "unspecified" cuts, I'd greatly appreciate it.
The word you're looking for is 'model'. We would also accept 'projection system'.
As in, Nate Silver's "model" that projected Obama's win in the 2012 election with 100% accuracy.
And what pray tale are the Democrat's plan? You had your #3 person go out this past Sunday and say spending is not a problem. Do you really think any positive dialog can be had when Pelosi is spouting this crap?
Who gives a shit what Romney's plan was, he's not the president. What we do know, is that Obama is a fucking moron to think that what he laid out last night wouldn't add a dime to the deficit?
How do you feel about the Senate controlled by Harry Reid has failed, by law, to pass a budget in the last 3 years?
This post was edited by NLeininger 17 months ago
The numbers it bases its projections off of are faulty numbers given to it by politicians. Politicians who never actually stick to those numbers. The problem isn't the CBO it's the information the CBO is given. The CBO isn't allowed to project anything based off numbers that Congress doesn't directly give to it.
Hell of a lot more detail than anything that Obama has produced.
Budgets are so not cool to Democrats. You aren't going to get anywhere with that argument they will just come back and say its the GOPs fault somehow that the Senate hasn't passed a budget.
Budgets and deficits are no big deal just numbers to them.
Honestly, there are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.
Let's see: Romney's plan matters because, 6 months ago, the entire GOP was behind it. If the entire GOP supports a plan, the plan should probably have some specifics, right?
"What we do know, is that Obama is a fucking moron to think that what he laid out last night wouldn't add a dime to the deficit?" Is this a question or a statement?
If Harry Reid actually "controlled" the Senate, filibuster reform wouldn't matter. Besides, the House is GOP-controlled - do they not deserve any blame?
As for a Democrat plan: here's the thing. The GOP has been screaming that every plan the Democrats advance is insufficient. GOP politicians invariably respond to new proposals by saying that there aren't nearly enough cuts. However, when Obama sat back and told Boehner to tell him what exactly the GOP proposed to cut to get to its ideal limit, the "unspecified" load of crap that I posted above is what resulted. If you're going to shout about spending cuts, you need to have a plan in place to detail what spending cuts you actually want. There's no reason for the Democrats to negotiate with themselves and do all the intellectual work until the GOP is satisfied.
No it gets its numbers from Congress, hence the name CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office. And it's not a very good baseline, they are never right.
Pelosi is wrong. We do have a spending problem. It's that that people don't have enough real money to spend and buy all the shit we can produce. Why is everyone so fixated on the gov't? The govt' hasn't suddenly increased spending to massive amounts over the last few years. The deficit has increased because tax receipts went in the toilet because GDP dropped dramatically. The gov't is not supposed to run a surplus. The people are supposed to run a surplus. If the gov't runs a surplus, this by law of accounting truth, means that the people run a deficit. We have only run gov't surplus's 7 periods in our history. Each one caused a Depression. The latest one (during the Clinton years) was delayed because of the housing bubble allowed for false spending to occur. Now we are feeling the pain. This is not about fixing the gov't debt. It's about creating a real economy where labor is mobilized to facilitate the trade of goods and services. When the gov't runs a deficit that allows for the private sector to have a surplus. If the gov't runs a surplus, it sucks money out of the private sector. If we paid of the gov't debt, there would be nothing left. See chart: https://twitter.com/deficitowl/status/298876583819739136/photo/1
The Democrats haven't had a plan, not one. How can you complain about how unspecific the GOP has been when your party has not produced one single plan vague or specific?
And no, the House has passed multiple budgets that were tabled in the Senate and never brought to the floor in the Senate and no counter plan offered. So you can't really blame the House.
You are so off here it's just sad. The Democrats have neglected to pass, or introduce, a budget because they don't want to get get pinned down with one. Purely political.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports