Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 50 of 50     «   Prev   47   48   49   50
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #1471 
Speaking of budgets, we can pretty much close out the Obama term.  Here are the numbers.

The Bush Administration came in following $1.789T in spending.  He averaged an annual spending growth of 6.5% while spending 19 Trillion dollars over eight years.  He ended with spending at $2.983T.

Obama comes in and averages annual spending growth of 4.2%, one of the lowest in recent history.  So much for skyrocketing spending accusations.  He spent almost $29T over eight years.  He ended with spending at $3.999T.  Take out the stimulus and spending would have been way down in annual growth.

If Bush would have continued another 8 years at 6.5 per cent growth, he would have spent 3.5 trillion more dollars than Obama thru 2016.  Spending in 2016 under Bush would have reached $4.973T versus the $3.999T the 2016 budget has scheduled.  Readers should never be fooled by accusations saying Democrats are big spenders.  Admittedly, Obama would have spent more given the opportunity but he would have offset it with some revenue including both taxes and by eliminating tax loopholes and corporate welfare, just to name a few examples.

The column on the right averages spending while reaching the same total dollars spent.



                   [image]


Question of the day, who spends more, Dems or Republicans?

Edit:  Btw, if revenue could grow at 5.7% rather than the unlikely to sustain 7% it has during the last eight years, and spending went up 4.2% just like it has the last eight years, we would balance in ten years and pay off debt in 26 years.  Clearly the CBO doesn't see that projection as being likely but it's something for our leaders to aim for.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #1472 
Bush era budgets ballooned under Democrat power of the purse.

Obama's era budgets have been cut drastically under GOP power of the purse.

Score GOP!

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #1473 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Bush era budgets ballooned under Democrat power of the purse. Bush probably said give me more money for military, finance the wars, and I'll give more money to Federal programs.  Democrats probably agreed.

Obama's era budgets have been cut drastically under GOP power of the purse.  Republicans surely ask for more money for military while offering little for infrastructure or programs, and offer no way whatsoever to pay for the increased spending.  Obama simply says no and nothing happens.  We refer to this as more gridlock.  I repeat, if the debt or the deficit is your concern, don't elect a Republican President.  Rate of spending will go up and rate of revenue growth will go down. Democrats will find necessary spending but they'll find the revenue as well, rather than ask our children to pay.

Score GOP!


If any of you follow this logic, and believe Bush was adamant against raising the deficit, then please tell the readers why he signed the budget the Democrats gave him.  Again, the Congress power of the purse is only powerful if the President agrees to accept their budget.  If you have any doubts, just ask yourself why this Congress has gone six years without de-funding Obamacare, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Education, etc.  If you believe FIB and think they just chose not to use their great power and include these much desired cuts in the budget, then I don't know what else to tell you.  You see, the only power the Congress has is to make a list as to where they're willing to spend money.  Once they do that, they have to call the President and hope he says OK.  If he says no, they can use the "power" of their feet to go back and write a new budget.

I will say if Congress presents a budget and says, "here it is, take it or leave it.  Close the Government if you wish but this is it", then you'd be on to something.  If Congress forces shutdown because budget doesn't fund Obamacare, and win, then I'll recognize the relevance of the purse string powers.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #1474 
Your ignorance of the Constitution and how the government works is astounding. But then again you're a Democrat. 
__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #1475 
You may have a chance at convincing some readers if you could point out what I said that was wrong.  I have agreed with you the President can't spend any money without authorization from Congress.  But that's not our debate.  Our debate is what responsibility does the President have when it comes to increasing or decreasing deficits?  Republican Presidents seem willing to sign on to budgets that raise deficits year to year and Democrat Presidents usually sign budgets with deficits that go down year to year.  Regardless if you want to give all the credit or blame to Congress, (using your opinion this Congress has given us many years of deficits), you still haven't stated why Bush would sign budgets that get worse from year to year.  You do know he doesn't have to, right?

Anyways, this looks like it go on forever so I'll just stick to my claim that Republicans are far worse when it comes to budget deficits, and history shows as much.  It's mostly because of military spending and tax cuts, and less to do with who is in the majority.  If a GOP Congress could get a Democrat President to agree to a budget with tax cuts, while they shut him down on spending, then Dem deficits would definitely look worse.  However, and despite the Constitutional power you keep harping about, a Democrat President generally just says no to this offer.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #1476 
Can't beat stupid.  [rofl]

I'll trust the readers understand the budget process, and imagine they're having a good laugh at your posts, like the rest of us.

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,550
Reply with quote  #1477 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-liberal-gets-religion-1473722200


Mr. Castro is chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a venerable institution dating to 1957 that has helped America kill Jim Crow and make good on our founding promises. An Obamaappointee, Mr. Castro last Wednesday made public a report on nondiscrimination protections—increasingly about gender preference and sexual orientation—that in its crassness rivalsHillary Clinton’s belittling of Donald Trump supporters.


Here’s Mr. Castro: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”


The commission report is called “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties.” Its top finding is this: “Civil rights protections ensuring nondiscrimination, as embodied in the Constitution, laws, and policies, are of pre-eminent importance in American jurisprudence.”

Translation: Nuisances including the First Amendment’s “free exercise” of religion guarantee take a back seat to the rapidly multiplying non-discrimination causes such as the “right” to coerce any baker you want into baking the cake you want for your same-sex wedding.

In her own submission to the report, the commission’s Gail Heriotpinpoints the flaw in the finding. A University of San Diego law professor, Ms. Heriot says she could easily imagine a case for Mr. Castro’s position. But instead of an argument, she says, the commission offers a decree.

“By starting with an assertion that antidiscrimination laws are ‘pre-eminent,’ she writes, “the Commission’s analysis essentially begins with its conclusion. Why should anyone accept it? The Commission said so.”




http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF



The second—again bird’s eye—comment I can make is this: While the targeted religious accommodations approach may sometimes be a good idea, it is not always the best strategy for people of faith. Targeted religious accommodations make it possible for ever-expanding government bureaucracies to divide and conquer. They remove the faith-based objections to their expansive ambitions, thus allowing them to ignore objections that are not based on faith. The bureaucratic juggernaut thus rolls on. People of faith should not allow themselves to become just another special interest that needs to be appeased before the next government expansion is allowed to proceed. They have an interest in ensuring the health of the many institutions of civil society that act as counterweights to the state—including not just the Church itself, but also the family, the press, small business and others. They also have an interest in ordered liberty in all its manifestations. A nation in which religious liberty is the only protected freedom is a nation that soon will be without religious liberty too.

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1478 
Quote:
Yesterday I asked my most liberal, Trump-hating friend if he ever figured out why Republicans have most of the Governorships, a majority in Congress, the White House, and soon the Supreme Court. He said, “There are no easy answers.”


[UC-BERKELEY-SCOTT-ADAMS-01-800x416]


__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #1479 
There was some good budget debate in this thread.  Leads me to wonder aloud if our next budget will see higher projected deficits?  With the planned cut in taxes, and the projected spending measures in both military and infrastructure, I think there can be little doubt deficits are about to climb significantly.  Won't be able to blame Democrats this time around. 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,845
Reply with quote  #1480 
Depends on if there is an actual budget or not. Obama never had one. Now suddenly Trump is President and without a budget, their will be a crisis and chaos. How did that work out for eight years and doubling the national debt. No need to cut the Dems favorite social handout programs. No need to cut the military, heck let's ramp up spending. While we're at it let's kick the can on entitlement programs down the road a straddle our children with a national debt so big that our GDP can't service the interest payment and S&S and Medicare make up 60-75 percent of spending.

__________________
Ignorance is forgivable, and correctable with proper study. Stupidity is a way of life.


keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1481 
How can a confused libtard support Sanctuary Cities AND E-Verify?  If one supported the rule of law, all laws should be enforced.
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1482 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
How can a confused libtard support Sanctuary Cities AND E-Verify?  If one supported the rule of law, all laws should be enforced.


Another tough question, why does Will I Wynn avoid threads that were authored by his alter ego?  Will will not touch this thread from Dewey.  Why is that Duaine?

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 7,930
Reply with quote  #1483 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
How can a confused libtard support Sanctuary Cities AND E-Verify?  If one supported the rule of law, all laws should be enforced.


Pretty simple - you do not support e-verify if you do not support it for ALL employees.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1484 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNarrator


Pretty simple - you do not support e-verify if you do not support it for ALL employees.


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!  Duaine supports E-Verify because he likes to be on the record saying he does.  He would not support it across the board, he wants lawbreakers to be grandfathered and only some to be held to the rule of law.  He wants a watered down E-verify with no teeth

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,550
Reply with quote  #1485 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNarrator


Pretty simple - you do not support e-verify if you do not support it for ALL employees.



Isn't that what we got under IRCA, seems we have learned a lesson.

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 14,496
Reply with quote  #1486 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost_1



Isn't that what we got under IRCA, seems we have learned a lesson.

Hopefully we have.  Security first. 

__________________
Just say no to dullards.   
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1487 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Can't beat stupid.  [rofl]

I'll trust the readers understand the budget process, and imagine they're having a good laugh at your posts, like the rest of us.


When speaking to Dewey this always held true, now Willy picked up the baton

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1488 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Whether it be a war hero, a Governor, head of an Olympic Committee, pizza magnate, or pediatric surgeon, the Democrat Blue Wall is nearly an insurmountable hurdle for the GOP in a Presidential election.  The tough question of the day is...

"How is choosing a crude and unqualified GOP candidate for President a sensible answer to addressing this Blue Wall?"


[image]

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,783
Reply with quote  #1489 
1. It's terrible if a Christian baker won't use his services for the benefit of a same-sex wedding.
2. It's awesome if a Leftist restaurant order refuses service to a Republican public official.

Pick one.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,783
Reply with quote  #1490 
Betsy DeVos.
Kirstjen Nielsen.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Why are only female members of Trump's team being stalked and harassed?

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 6,618
Reply with quote  #1491 
cuz libs are effeminate pussies?
__________________

"What questions are not getting answered.  The only ones I see being avoided is "Why you switch from Dewey to Will I Wynn?"  and  "Why you switch from Bama_CF to Fresh?" and of course the best one that will never get answered, never in a million years... "When you bringing back KPI?"

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,779
Reply with quote  #1492 
The libs on this forum are for sure
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.