Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Oh, For Argument's Sake ... another AIM chat with Ommie -- mucho fun
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] [i]The new estimate for the federal surplus is sharply lower -- off by 44 percent --- from the $275 billion figure the CBO was predicting just three months ago.[/i] CBO projections are worthless. According to earlier projections, we should be running a massive deficit right now. But of course, they were going on the assumption that Clinton's policies would be continued when they said that, so... [i]This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday.[/i] I fail to see how anyone can not see the inherent stupidity in this paragraph. Why, if we're running a massive surplus, would we possibly need to take money from one program to use it somewhere else? [i]The U.S. figures its annual bottom line by including all tax revenues - including taxes that can only be used to pay Social Security benefits. If revenues fall short, the government has customarily borrowed from Social Security.[/i] There's a confusing, poorly written paragraph. [i]Democrats have been quick to use the new budget numbers as backing for a claim they have been making for months -- that the Bush tax cut is too costly, especially in tandem with the administration's proposals to increase spending for defense, education and other programs. [/i] Yet more evidence that they're lying scum. The Bush budget won't go into effect until October. We're operating off of Clinton's last budget. Blame him. And I would point out that the tax cut has a total effect of $40 billion this year, which is only a minor portion of the decrease in the surplus. Under any circumstances, Dachele wanted $60 billion. Gephardt wanted $80 billion. So why are they complaining? Their tax cuts would have had a "worse" effect on this year's surplus. [i]"They have an obligation to tell us -- for example, when the president asks for $18 billion more for defense next year -- how is he going to pay for it?" [/i] With the massive surplus, perhaps? [i]Already, Democrats have questioned whether the nation can afford some of Bush's spending priorities, in particular the proposed boost for defense spending.[/i] I will say this one more time. We. Have. A. Frikin'. Surplus. A. MASSIVE. Frikin' Surplus. Yes, it's shrinking, but that's the idea! A surplus is, by definition, unbugeted money. "Oh, but we can't fund XXX existing program without the surplus!" Yes, you CAN! The budget pays for it. The surplus is EXTRA. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3