Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on December 13, 2010, 09:17:26 PM
-
Wow... when barbara walters says ya need to man up... I can't believe how many clips they had of him crying. Geez. Dude needs counseling. At the very least, it makes America look weak that the #3 leader in America can't speak for 5 minutes without "weeping".
-
LMFAO at the idiots criticizing this guy for crying but giving pelosi a pass on the igorance of legislation she got obama to pass...
240 do you want to compare resumes?
pelosi and boehner?
didnt think so... ::)
again way to criticize boehner for political grandstanding while starting threads to condemn him while politically grandstanding...YOU FUKING TOOL ;)
-
More taking sides... ::)
Pelosi's a fucking bitch, and Boehner is a damn cry baby...
-
More taking sides... ::)
Pelosi's a fucking bitch, and Boehner is a damn cry baby...
lets criticize each of them for their policies shall we...
lets see...
pelosi: health care, stimulus, finereg, not wanting to extend tax cuts that are proven to help the economy...
boehner: hmm wanting to pass tax cuts that are proven to help the economy...anyone else?
didnt think so...
so lets keep the attention off the issues, nothing to see here more liberal idiocy... ;)
-
lets criticize each of them for their policies shall we...
lets see...
pelosi: health care, stimulus, finereg, not wanting to extend tax cuts that are proven to help the economy...
boehner: hmm wanting to pass tax cuts that are proven to help the economy...anyone else?
didnt think so...
so lets keep the attention off the issues, nothing to see here more liberal idiocy... ;)
God help my beloved Mother Merrill for letting dipshits like you enter into their employ. ;D
-
God help my beloved Mother Merrill for letting dipshits like you enter into their employ. ;D
dispute what i said brain child ;D
-
so lets keep the attention off the issues, nothing to see here more liberal idiocy... ;)
No, I want to put attention on the issue. Not go back and forth about who wants to fuck us worse, and in which way...
-
dispute what i said brain child ;D
Rephrase what needs disputing, my entry-level employee friend. :D
-
Wow... when barbara walters says ya need to man up... I can't believe how many clips they had of him crying. Geez. Dude needs counseling. At the very least, it makes America look weak that the #3 leader in America can't speak for 5 minutes without "weeping".
I can respect a man who is strong enough in his own sense of masculinity to be in touch with his emotions, ...and occasionally openly shed a tear or two, ...but Boehner is ridiculous! I can only imagine how he bawled his eyes out when Pelosi suggested a tax on sun tanning sessions. What he needs to be crying about was his turning a blind eye to that perverted pedophile in Congress.
-
I can respect a man who is strong enough in his own sense of masculinity to be in touch with his emotions, ...and occasionally openly shed a tear or two, ...but Boehner is ridiculous! I can only imagine how he bawled his eyes out when Pelosi suggested a tax on sun tanning sessions. What he needs to be crying about was his turning a blind eye to that perverted pedophile in Congress.
:o ???
-
Benny works in finance? Highly suspect. Unless you consider 10 hours shifts at a toll both in the non ez pass lane as "financial" in nature.
Next, since when is Barbara Walters qualified to diagnose mental illness when she shares a show with mental midgets like Joy Behar and Benny Blanco's mother in law Whoppi Goldberg?
-
boehner: hmm wanting to pass tax cuts that are proven to help the economy...anyone else?
CBO says keeping them in place will reduce UE by .0 to .1 percent.
Worth adding 800 bil to the deficit?
I think Boehner is crying because he never learned math
-
-
-
Why don't you idiots get back to us when he pushes tyrannical bills like cap n trade, bamacarean etc?
-
Why don't you idiots get back to us when he pushes tyrannical bills like cap n trade, bamacarean etc?
Yeah he is a real tyrant that Obama ::)
-
Funny, you would think him crying would endure him to libs......I guess until he pillow-bites it won't...
-
God help my beloved Mother Merrill for letting dipshits like you enter into their employ. ;D
Hey idiot - when is the miracle going to happen with the One?
-
Boehner Booze Watch Meter Seismic Activity
One of the things I enjoy most about this blog is reading the site traffic stats. I can view the daily traffic stats over time and they read like a seismograph of alcoholic activity located in the lower region of John Boehner’s liver.
I unfortunately don’t have the time to check in daily and update as often as I would like, however, I can always tell something has happened in the political cosmos involving our beloved boozer when I look at the hits per day. It usually means one of a number of or combination of things: John Boehner has gone on a tirade in some interview and made a silly or candid quote. I’ve been linked from somewhere else. John Boehner has be videotaped or recorded – drunk, in public – again. Or as in today’s case: John Boehner cried.
And the thing that’s so great, is that all of these items usually have one simple, internet search theme involving a variation of two words in common: “Drunk Boehner.” Key word searches read like spikes on an alcohol Richter scale.
Case in point are a sample of today’s search engine gems:
john boehner drunk 68
john boehner alcoholic 65
boehner alcoholic 56
boehner drunk 32
is john boehner an alcoholic 19
john boehner alcoholism 15
boehner alcoholism 7
is boehner an alcoholic 6
john boehner drinking problem 6
Other search terms 151
Undoubtedly, today’s influx in traffic is related to Boehner’s sobbing display on last nights 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl.
If you haven’t seen the clip, check out the 5-minute highlight clip link here.
C’Mon Boehner! Get it together man…Democrats are supposed to be the Party of Whimps dude! You’re pulling a Muskie!
I wonder what Dick Morris would have to say about Boehner after accusing then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of having a “psychological breakdown” on the campaign trail when she cried back in 2008.
John, please stop mixing the booze with the anti-depressants.
-
You leftists are so funny - you never discss a policy, never discuss a topic, never discuss he pros or con of an issue, but focus on personality crap and move day to day to anew target after the last one fails miserably to take hold.
Like I said, when Boehner starts pusdhing traitorous shit like bamacare, Cap n Trade, terrorist trials in NYC, etc, get back to me.
I could care less if the man cries 24/7 so ong as he pushes the right legislation and laws.
-
I respect him more if he likes some booze.
-
I could care less if the man cries 24/7 so ong as he pushes the right legislation and laws.
So you care about the non-issues when they involve michelle's shoes - but any involving republicans are off-limits? ah, gotcha
-
So you care about the non-issues when they involve michelle's shoes - but any involving republicans are off-limits? ah, gotcha
Those are sideshow issues that are good to mock these cretins at 1600 PA Ave., but please 240 spare me the spin, I focus on more issues than almost anyone here.
-
So you care about the non-issues when they involve michelle's shoes - but any involving republicans are off-limits? ah, gotcha
240, all you do bitch about non-issues when they involve republicans. Your completely clueless and ignorant on politics in general. The only thing you contribute around here is retarded conspiracy theories about 911 and articles from the Daily KOS about Bristol Palins diaper bag. What substantive criticism have you engaged in on this board since 2007 which wasn't a left wing science fiction novel about 911 or an excerpt from a left wing stalkers diary involving Sarah Palin and her family?
-
John Boehner Crying on 60 Minutes
-
John Boehner Finally Figures Out How to 'Hold Back' Those Tears
By Don Davis
“AS SENATOR McCONNELL HAS SUGGESTED, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ASK ME, I’M SIMPLY GONNA’ THINK ABOUT THE POOR, THE UNEMPLOYED. AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO DOESN’T BELONG TO A COUNTRY CLUB.”
-
-
Wow... when barbara walters says ya need to man up... I can't believe how many clips they had of him crying. Geez. Dude needs counseling. At the very least, it makes America look weak that the #3 leader in America can't speak for 5 minutes without "weeping".
240,
Boehner (1 of 10 children) worked as a night time Janitor to put himself through College, took him 7 years to do so. I personally see no fault in him being emotional about looking back at where he came from, and all the dreams and goals he set for himself while working nights cleaning toilets and mopping floors, to put himself through school, and then having these dreams come true, and thinking of what other Country but America that this could happen in.
-
James - havent you learned already?
Libs can't defend a damn thing their shamans have done over the past 2 years so they focus on bogus crap like this.
For all I care, hecould wear diapers in the well of the house, so long as he is doing the right thin legislatively.
With the leftists/marxists/progressives - they could care less what their messiahs are doing so long as they are perceived to look good doing it.
240 - is losing whatever veneer he once had of being a "libertarian".
-
Wow... when barbara walters says ya need to man up... I can't believe how many clips they had of him crying. Geez. Dude needs counseling. At the very least, it makes America look weak that the #3 leader in America can't speak for 5 minutes without "weeping".
Babies cry when you take their liquor bottle.
-
James - havent you learned already?
Libs can't defend a damn thing their shamans have done over the past 2 years so they focus on bogus crap like this.
For all I care, hecould wear diapers in the well of the house, so long as he is doing the right thin legislatively.
With the leftists/marxists/progressives - they could care less what their messiahs are doing so long as they are perceived to look good doing it.
240 - is losing whatever veneer he once had of being a "libertarian".
This is exactly why I don't post on here much anymore. The Political Board is too much like the G&O Board now.
-
So you care about the non-issues when they involve michelle's shoes - but any involving republicans are off-limits? ah, gotcha
BOOM
-
240,
Boehner (1 of 10 children) worked as a night time Janitor to put himself through College, took him 7 years to do so. I personally see no fault in him being emotional about looking back at where he came from, and all the dreams and goals he set for himself while working nights cleaning toilets and mopping floors, to put himself through school, and then having these dreams come true, and thinking of what other Country but America that this could happen in.
LOL
You think this is only possible in america? In Europe he would have had a paid education in many countries :D
-
LOL
You think this is only possible in america? In Europe he would have had a paid education in many countries :D
Yeah - and a collapsing nation since most of the EU is disintegrating under its own weight and welfare addiction.
-
You want emotional problems? Go to Huffington Post, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The left has been in dire need of couch time for the last month and a half.
-
LOL
You think this is only possible in america? In Europe he would have had a paid education in many countries :D
And when the money runs out and the lazy folks can't spend other people's cash, the spoiled brats start rioting and setting stuff on fire.
-
CBO says keeping them in place will reduce UE by .0 to .1 percent.
Worth adding 800 bil to the deficit?
I think Boehner is crying because he never learned math
LOL read and learn brain child...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
doubt you will though ::) ::) ::)
-
Aside from everything else, I really am surprised by how far 240 has moved to the left.
-
LOL read and learn brain child...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
doubt you will though ::) ::) ::)
I'll doubt you'll ever understand that your list of neocon talking points is nonsense.
Here is Reagans former budget director (a true republican who actually knows something about budgets, the deficit and the debt) assessment of the last 30 years of Republican Tax Policy
This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts[/u]
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
-
LOL i asked for your counter arguments and you just give me talking points...
the site actually goes into detail of how they came to those conclusions...
so please give counter arguments with specific verifiable details not yours or someones elses opinions
those myth busters are backed by numbers bro...
disprove those numbers
-
LOL i asked for your counter arguments and you just give me talking points...
the site actually goes into detail of how they came to those conclusions...
so please give counter arguments with specific verifiable details not yours or someones elses opinions
those myth busters are backed by numbers bro...
disprove those numbers
those aren't my arguments.
they are statements by former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan.
He watched the rise of the deficit financed tax cut from the beginning.
This guy was a supply side "true believer" until he started seeing the results
You don't have to believe me. You can hear his talk about it right here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425
-
those aren't my arguments.
they are statements by former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan.
He watched the rise of the deficit financed tax cut from the beginning.
This guy was a supply side "true believer" until he started seeing the results
You don't have to believe me. You can hear his talk about it right here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425
I dont care what he says, what do the numbers say?
give me numbers, to disprove the numbers I presented you or give me reasons why those are wrong...
-
I dont care what he says, what do the numbers say?
give me numbers, to disprove the numbers I presented you or give me reasons why those are wrong...
fair enough
I don't care what you say and certainly don't care what the Heritage Foundation says.
Out of the 3 of us Stockman is the only expert and he was one of the original architects of supply side economics
btw - there are no "numbers" in those 10 talking points (unless you're talking about the numbers like 2006, 2003 etc..) so how can I "disprove" the numbers?
-
-
fair enough
I don't care what you say and certainly don't care what the Heritage Foundation says.
Out of the 3 of us Stockman is the only expert and he was one of the original architects of supply side economics
btw - there are no "numbers" in those 10 talking points (unless you're talking about the numbers like 2006, 2003 etc..) so how can I "disprove" the numbers?
LOL not there are plenty of numbers click the link and READ!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL then you agree that those numbers prove the myths wrong?
b/c obviously they do by the numbers, it may go against yours and stockmans OPINIONS but the FACTS show youre wrong ;)
-
LOL not there are plenty of numbers click the link and READ!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL then you agree that those numbers prove the myths wrong?
b/c obviously they do by the numbers, it may go against yours and stockmans OPINIONS but the FACTS show youre wrong ;)
I wonder why someone like Stockman is unaware of the neocon talking points
I wonder why he thinks that the tax cuts have increased the deficits
This guy is a Republican who championed "supply side" economics and was all for tax cuts until he saw the results.
why should I believe a neocon think tank who's job it is to promote exactly what Stockman has said is the cause of the problem? They are promoting the exact DELUSION that Stockman is talking about
Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts
This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
-
I wonder why someone like Stockman is unaware of the neocon talking points
I wonder why he thinks that the tax cuts have increased the deficits
This guy is a Republican who championed "supply side" economics and was all for tax cuts until he saw the results.
why should I believe a neocon think tank who's job it is to promote exactly what Stockman has said is the cause of the problem? They are promoting the exact DELUSION that Stockman is talking about
LOL b/c its backed with numbers not personal OPINION...
The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]
The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.
DISPUTE THESE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
LOL b/c its backed with numbers not personal OPINION...
The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]
The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.
DISPUTE THESE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
simple question
we know Bush did not include the cost of either war in his budgets therefore not accounted in his budget deficits
can you tell me if the Heritage Foundation bothered to factor those back in or are they just using the cooked books of the Bush Amin?
-
Here you go Tony
Let's play dueling "cut and paste"
I won't even bother highlighting. You can just read the whole thing
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
Heritage Foundation’s Analysis is Misleading
A recent Heritage Foundation report claims that tax cuts and other policies initiated during the Bush administration are not a significant factor behind the deficits we face in the coming decade.[10] Heritage places blame for the deficits squarely on rapid growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest costs, and dismisses the significance of weak revenues in general and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in particular. But Heritage’s analysis is both misguided and seriously misleading.
■Heritage ignores the fact that rapidly-rising interest costs — one of its “culprits” behind rising outlays — result in significant part from the tax cuts and other fiscal policies of the Bush era . The tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over $2.6 trillion of our national debt by the end of 2008 and, if continued, will add another $7 trillion in debt by 2019. In that year alone, about $450 billion of our interest bill will stem from those two policies. It is disingenuous to tar interest as a “fast-growing” spending program while ignoring which policies — including tax cuts — account for that fact.
Heritage admits that it understates the cost of the tax cuts by omitting their impact on rising net interest costs. “On the other hand,” Heritage asserts, “the original CBO scores of tax cuts have been underestimates because they excluded all supply-side feedback effects and overestimated the GDP between 2008 and 2011, which made all revenue and tax cut projections appear larger.” That convenient justification, however, misses the boat. We know that the tax cuts led to higher borrowing and larger debt-service costs. We do not know that they led to extra economic activity (or that they would have a positive effect on economic activity if made permanent). In fact, analyses of so-called “dynamic scoring” of tax cuts have found that: 1) such estimates generally come close to the standard estimates;[11] 2) stimulative effects may appear strong in the short run but tend to dissipate over longer horizons; and 3) most importantly, as both CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation have concluded, large tax cuts financed by borrowing can harm the economy over the long term rather than help it. [12] In short, there is no reason to ignore the enormous debt overhang that the Bush tax cuts caused and plenty of reason to be skeptical of their economic benefits. Including the interest costs, the Bush-era tax cuts account for over $700 billion — or nearly 55 percent — of the deficit projected for 2019 under current policies.
■Heritage ignores the fact that the share of deficits accounted for by the Bush-era tax cuts will grow in future years as the impact of the economic downturn on deficits diminishes . Because the economic downturn and efforts to combat it have such a large effect on the deficit in 2010, the share of the deficit accounted for by the tax cuts seems relatively modest; we estimate that the tax cuts account for about one quarter of the 2010 deficit. But as the effects of the downturn recede, the tax cuts will account for a much larger share. In 2019, the tax cuts, if continued, will account for nearly three-fifths of the deficit. And, despite the growing impact of rising health care costs and the continued aging of the population after 2019, the tax cuts will continue to have a major impact on the deficit. The Center has estimated that not extending the tax cuts — or fully paying for the cost of extending them — would reduce the projected budget shortfall through 2050 by two-fifths. [13]
■In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPP’s, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritage’s decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define “current policy” when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade. [14]
■It was not a sudden spurt of growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that turned projected budget surpluses into deficits . CBO and many budget analysts have long pointed out that the “big three” entitlement programs will swell in future decades as a result of an aging population and steady growth in per-capita health-care costs.[15] Indeed, CBO had already projected that this would eventually occur when, in 2001, it projected significant budget surpluses through 2011 and years beyond . [16] Since the growth in these large programs was anticipated (other than the growth due to enactment of the Medicare prescription drug benefit), it is not what turned projected surpluses to deficits.
Moreover, although CBO was projecting years of surpluses as the Bush Administration took office in 2001, it nevertheless warned that the nation’s long-term fiscal health was worrisome. The Bush Administration and Congress nevertheless opted to ignore these warnings and to cut taxes deeply, establish a Medicare drug benefit without covering its costs, and fight two wars on borrowed money.
Technical Note
Baseline projections depict the likely path of the federal budget if current policies remain unchanged. We base our estimates on CBO’s latest ten-year projections, published in March 2010, with several adjustments to reflect what will happen if we continue current tax and spending policies.
Specifically, our baseline includes the budgetary effects of continuing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire after 2010, renewing certain other so-called “tax extenders” such as the research and development tax credit, and continuing relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Our baseline also assumes the effects of continuing to defer scheduled cuts in payments for Medicare providers, as has routinely occurred in recent years, and instead providing doctors with a payment increase based on the Medicare Economic Index. We also account for a gradual phase-down of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all cases we based our adjustments on estimates published by CBO.
We calculated major components of the deficits as follows:
■Economic downturn — This category includes all changes in the deficit that CBO labeled “economic” in the five reports — in January, March, and August 2009 and January and March 2010[17] — that it has issued since September 2008, which total $1 trillion over the 2009-2018 period. It also includes the bulk of revenue changes that CBO classified as “technical.” In the revenue area, so-called technical changes essentially refer to trends in collections that CBO’s analysts cannot tie directly to published macroeconomic data. In fact, those data become available with a lag and are subject to major revision; weak revenues are often a tipoff that the economy is worse than the official statistics suggest. Furthermore, some key determinants of revenues — such as capital gains on stock-market transactions — are tied to the economy, but those influences are not captured by the standard macroeconomic indicators. Because the economic-versus-technical distinction is so arbitrary for revenues, we have ascribed most of CBO’s large, downward “technical” reestimates to the economic downturn. We add the associated debt-service costs. The technical reestimates to revenues and the associated debt-service costs add $1.5 trillion and $0.4 trillion, respectively, to this category over the 2009-2018 period.
Combined, the factors that we ascribe to the economic downturn account for nearly $3 trillion in extra deficits in 2009 through 2018. [18]
■TARP, Fannie, and Freddie — The Treasury spent $243 billion for these entities in 2009 ($151 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, net of dividends received). Projections for 2010 through 2019 come from CBO’s January 2010 baseline. We computed the extra debt-service costs, which total $111 billion over the 2009-2019 period. (By 2014, virtually the entire cost shown in Table 1 represents debt-service costs.)
■Recovery measures — When ARRA was passed, it bore a “headline” cost of $787 billion as officially estimated by CBO. [19] In January 2010, CBO revised that figure to $862 billion, chiefly to reflect higher costs than initially expected for ARRA’s provisions governing unemployment insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) — primarily as a result of economic conditions — and for Build America Bonds.[20] We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle. The AMT provision accounted for $70 billion of ARRA’s $862 billion cost, leaving $792 billion. CBPP then added the cost of several smaller, discrete recovery measures that have been enacted in late 2009 and early 2010, totaling $84 billion in 2010 (but just $38 billion over the 2010-2019 period).[22] We then added the associated debt-service costs, which amount to $317 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
-
hey I appreciate the actually going out and finding it, ill read it here when I get a chance. ;)
-
240,
Boehner (1 of 10 children) worked as a night time Janitor to put himself through College, took him 7 years to do so. I personally see no fault in him being emotional about looking back at where he came from, and all the dreams and goals he set for himself while working nights cleaning toilets and mopping floors, to put himself through school, and then having these dreams come true, and thinking of what other Country but America that this could happen in.
That really does put his crying in perspective. Thanks for this info.
-
yes, it puts his crying in perspective when he thinks about his childhood. But everytime he brings it up?
He stated that he can't go into schools with little children thinking about what they may not be able to accomplish.
If he can speak on it and cry once or twice ok....but everytime he thinks on it?
There is something more going on there imo.
Sandra
-
yes, it puts his crying in perspective when he thinks about his childhood. But everytime he brings it up?
He stated that he can't go into schools with little children thinking about what they may not be able to accomplish.
If he can speak on it and cry once or twice ok....but everytime he thinks on it?
There is something more going on there imo.
Sandra
That's not my take on James' comments. I think the fact Boehner came from a tough background, worked so hard to be successful, and has been a public servant gives him a greater appreciation for what this country has to offer.
-
And when the money runs out and the lazy folks can't spend other people's cash, the spoiled brats start rioting and setting stuff on fire.
Yes all europeans are lyzy people who use other peoples money and set things on fire ::)
-
Not all, but europeeons in general are "give me something for nothing" types.
-
That's not my take on James' comments. I think the fact Boehner came from a tough background, worked so hard to be successful, and has been a public servant gives him a greater appreciation for what this country has to offer.
got it.
Sandra
-
Like I said, so long as boehner does the right thing legislatively, he could cry every day for all I care.
-
Like I said, so long as boehner does the right thing legislatively, he could cry every day for all I care.
Agreed
-
That's not my take on James' comments.I think the fact Boehner came from a tough background, worked so hard to be successful, and has been a public servant gives him a greater appreciation for what this country has to offer.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lzRf9b1vduk/SqStXX-4V2I/AAAAAAAAACc/0CphKSkYiQY/s1600/nailed%2Bit.jpg)
-
How many more times does a 60 year old man have to cry about his childhood before he can get a hold of himself.
John Boner = Weeper of the House
-
it's a great story - and very appropriate in forums where 'picking yourself up from the bootstraps' is useful.
But when it comes to "no compromise hardass ready to neutralize the obama agenda", he doesn't exactly instill fear with the crying, IMO.
-
it's a great story - and very appropriate in forums where 'picking yourself up from the bootstraps' is useful.
But when it comes to "no compromise hardass ready to neutralize the obama agenda", he doesn't exactly instill fear with the crying, IMO.
-
it's a great story - and very appropriate in forums where 'picking yourself up from the bootstraps' is useful.
But when it comes to "no compromise hardass ready to neutralize the obama agenda", he doesn't exactly instill fear with the crying, IMO.
LOL ::) its not him you need to be afraid of its his influence over the rest of the reps...
seems like he has them organized pretty good right now, huh?
apparently bending you lover over the table with the tax bill according to him being "hostage takers" LMAO
-
Oh dear the right wingers have a 'fairy' in their midst. Larry Craig all over again with this guy! hahaha
-
:D
-
December 15, 2010
The Tears of John Boehner
By TIMOTHY EGAN
Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.
Crybaby. Wimp. Sensitive man. The reviews of John Boehner’s sobfest in a “60 Minutes” profile last Sunday have been all over the map, fueling a debate on when it’s appropriate for men in public life to cry.
Barbara Walters said the incoming speaker of the House has an emotional problem, and that if Nancy Pelosi had been such a serial bawler, she’d never have heard the end of it. Walters’s colleague on “The View,” Joy Behar, called Boehner “The Weeper of the House.” And Sean Hannity of Fox said people should lay off Boehner, because when right-wingers cry it’s not a sign of weakness.
What’s been missing is the reason why Boehner cries so much. Around Washington, he’s known as a chain-smoking, Merlot-swilling, golf-loving conservative hardliner. Lobbyists love him, no more so than when he handed out checks from the tobacco industry to compliant members of Congress on the House floor.
It’s when he talks about how he rose from his humble past — the son of a bar owner, one of 12 children who grew up in a small home with a single bathroom — that Boehner starts to weep.
“Making sure these kids have a shot at the American Dream like I did is very important,” he said, choking up, when asked on “60 Minutes” about his crying.
But a look at Boehner’s record during his two decades in Congress shows a man who has voted against nearly every boost for the working stiff. There’s no empathy for those with the longest shots at the American Dream in his voting pattern. Instead, we see a politician who is hard-hearted in his legislative treatment of the people now coping with the kind of economic conditions in which the Boehner family grew up.
The American Dream that Boehner evokes between tears has never been more threatened. By some measures, social mobility — that is, the ability of people to move up a notch in class — is at an all-time low in this country. Poor Americans now have less than a 5 percent chance of rising to the upper-middle-class within their lifetimes.
At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor, and the concentration of wealth owned by those at the very top, has never been so great. After examining these trends, The Economist wrote that “the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”
Numerous studies have shown that what knocks people out of the middle class, or keeps them from ever joining it, is a catastrophic bill or two — usually from getting sick and not having health care. Then, those debts go on credit cards, which leads to a misery hole of high interest and limited choices.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/12/15/opinion/egan_boehner/egan_boehner-articleInline.jpg)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Rep. John Boehner fighting back tears after the midterm elections.
Against this backdrop, Boehner has fought against strivers and strugglers at the lower end, while shilling for ever-more concentrated corporate power and banker control. The one thing that stirs his passion is tax cuts. But nearly half of American households don’t pay any income tax at all, so Boehner’s crusade doesn’t affect them. And a decade of aggressive tax-cutting has done nothing to reverse the woes of everyday working people.
Boehner voted for the major trade agreements that make it easier to ship jobs overseas, while voting against assistance to workers who lose jobs to globalization. He voted no on expanding health care for poor children, no on raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and no on a bill to allow people to purchase F.D.A.-certified prescription drugs at a cheaper price from certain countries.
So: he wants to deny health care to poor children, let millionaires hold onto more of their money while blocking a small raise for the lowest earners and prevent people on fixed incomes from getting a break on the costliest item in their personal budget — their meds.
Boehner got a zero rating from Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit founded in 1979 to give average people a greater voice on tax policy amidst a stadium full of lobbyists for the rich.
More recently, he voted against modifying bankruptcy rules — rebuffing an effort to help people avoid mortgage foreclosures. He said no to the federal rescue of General Motors, which saved the American auto industry, countless jobs in Boehner’s Midwest, and did it all without a long-lasting hit on the Treasury. And he gave a thumbs down to regulation of the subprime mortgage industry.
Like Boehner’s father, my grandmother in Chicago owned a small bar that catered to a working-class clientele. She lived above the bar, a widowed single mother, working seven days a week. What saved her in her old age was a great, expansive government program that allowed so many Americans to live out the last decades of their lives in dignity — Medicare. Yes, that single-payer, socialized medical system that Boehner would surely vote against if it came up today.
For whatever reason, Boehner’s life story never gave him a broader governing vision for the folks he knew in his hometown of Reading, Ohio. When he turns on the waterworks while talking about them, it raises two questions:
Is Boehner crying because he escaped that fate? Or because of the person he has become — a politician whose votes show he couldn’t care less for the people he left behind?
-
LOL reach a little further there benny
-
Benny is a joke beyond anything i have ever seen.