So where did the deficit come from?

[Perchoutofwater]

And not only the CBO.

 

Wow, I thought you were above the misdirection of yeah but Bush and his war!!!

 

ETA: I am a pissed that we didn't get any of that oil money for freeing them from an oppressive regime.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

Wow, I thought you were above the misdirection of yeah but Bush and his war!!!

 

ETA: I am a pissed that we didn't get any of that oil money for freeing them from an oppressive regime.

And all the business we generated for funeral parlor owners. What about that? Ungrateful wretches.

[wiegie]

Seriously when has the CBO not been overly optimistic? I can't think of a single time where there projections were more pessimistic than what actually ended up occurring. Can you think of any of significance?

You might find this article enlightening:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3910

 

Here's a sort of preview from the article (which originally was an August 2001 WSJ op-ed piece):

The real story is the way in which each forecast is treated as indisputable fact, despite the CBO's record of exaggerating deficits and underestimating surpluses.

[Clubfoothead]

I don't need to read any BS link. We invaded, occupied, liberated and are now rebuilding the largest welfare state in the world.

 

I think I've located where it came from.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I don't need to read any BS link. We invaded, occupied, liberated and are now rebuilding the largest welfare state in the world.

 

I think I've located where it came from.

 

game, set and match

[bushwacked]

I don't need to read any BS link. We invaded, occupied, liberated and are now rebuilding the largest welfare state in the world.

 

I think I've located where it came from.

 

 

game, set and match

 

Whatever you say comrades.

[WaterMan]

I don't need to read any BS link. We invaded, occupied, liberated and are now rebuilding the largest welfare state in the world.

 

I think I've located where it came from.

 

I know an Iraq war veteran who said that the Iraqi people are the laziest people he's ever seen.

[evil_gop_liars]

I don't need to read any BS link. We invaded, occupied, liberated and are now rebuilding the largest welfare state in the world.

 

I think I've located where it came from.

 

+1 Trillion and counting.

[WaterMan]

And all the business we generated for funeral parlor owners. What about that? Ungrateful wretches.

 

Don't forget Haliburton. Where would they be without our extra war?

[WaterMan]

You might find this article enlightening:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3910

 

Here's a sort of preview from the article (which originally was an August 2001 WSJ op-ed piece):

 

In early 1993, the CBO warned the Clinton administration that the deficit would remain stuck near $300 billion until 1997, and then soar to $653 billion by 2003. The assumptions were remarkable. The CBO wrote that "real economic growth is posited to continue at about 2% a year." Yet the only time the economy has done nearly that badly for an entire decade was 1930-40, when annual growth averaged 2.2%. Rather than question the CBO's assumption that the economy was about to underperform the Great Depression, the administration pushed through another destructive tax hike in 1993. But all of Mr. Clinton's new taxes were merely worth $48 billion a year, said the CBO. A number that small could easily be erased by reducing estimated economic growth a bit more.

 

How about we fire the CBO? That would save some money.

[Perchoutofwater]

You might find this article enlightening:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3910

 

Here's a sort of preview from the article (which originally was an August 2001 WSJ op-ed piece):

 

I stand corrected. Recently though (since 2000) wouldn't you agree that the CBO is typically overly optimistic?

[SEC=UGA]

You might find this article enlightening:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3910

 

Here's a sort of preview from the article (which originally was an August 2001 WSJ op-ed piece):

 

I refuse to believe any opinion article on some right wing website.

[wiegie]

I refuse to believe any opinion article on some right wing website.

you are wise--because the argument the author used in the article turned out to be spectacularly wrong

[SEC=UGA]

you are wise--because the argument the author used in the article turned out to be spectacularly wrong

 

Dammit, now I have to read it...

[wiegie]

Dammit, now I have to read it...

prepared to be amused (in a sad way)

[Azazello1313]

I stand corrected. Recently though (since 2000) wouldn't you agree that the CBO is typically overly optimistic?

 

I wouldn't say that. they just always assume pretty "average" growth -- and that's probably a good thing, doing otherwise would be pretty presumptuous on their part.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Making permanent all tax cuts for the middle class will cost the Treasury $2.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, at a time when Washington has already added trillions to the debt. Extending the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans would drain an additional $678 billion.

 

So if extending the tax cuts will cost our country $2.7T over 10 years, isn't it logical to assume the tax cuts we have already experienced also cost this country trillions of dollars?

 

Democrats consider extending tax cuts to only middle class....and Republicans still have problems with it

Edited July 21, 2010 by i_am_the_swammi

[bpwallace49]

Democrats dispute the idea that mom-and-pop small businesses are making more than $200,000 a year. In fact, 94.5% of all "flow-through" entities (self-employed folks, who generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts of under $100,000 in 2007, according to the Tax Policy Center. Likewise, less than 5% of the subchapter-S companies - small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes - made more than $200,000 in 2007.

 

Seems to be a decent compromise between the Bush tax cuts and taking some measures to reduce debt. especially when the vast majority of small business- owners would not be subjected to their breaks expiring . . .

[Azazello1313]

In fact, 94.5% of all "flow-through" entities (self-employed folks, who generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts of under $100,000 in 2007, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Seems to be a decent compromise between the Bush tax cuts and taking some measures to reduce debt. especially when the vast majority of small business- owners would not be subjected to their breaks expiring . . .

 

 

ok, so most self-employed folks won't be exposed, that's a non sequitur to the republicans' argument. what about the small businesses that actually hire employees?

[bpwallace49]

Seems to be a decent compromise between the Bush tax cuts and taking some measures to reduce debt. especially when the vast majority of small business- owners would not be subjected to their breaks expiring . . .

 

 

ok, so most self-employed folks won't be exposed, that's a non sequitur to the republicans' argument. what about the small businesses that actually hire employees?

 

Like these?

 

Likewise, less than 5% of the subchapter-S companies - small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes - made more than $200,000 in 2007