Federal Budget doubles in 10 years

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah...I could see that building up. (but) At least it was more civil this time. I was prepared for lots of sarcastic jabs. Maybe that was a TGIF moment.

Care to address the issue at hand or will you take jabs since I passed on it?

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Care to address the issue at hand or will you take jabs since I passed on it?

I'm reflecting on your last post. (but) IMO - O does not get credit for the recent spending decline. I think it's coz the house reigned him & the Dems in.

Time to eat dinner. I will probably read up on revenues a bit ...crunch some numbers if I see something needing further scrutiny. I will reply later if I have a dispute re: revenues impact on spending. Coz right now...what I'm taking from it = (if) The gov had more revenue.. they would've spent more. & (most likely) O would have increased his budget requests. Consider the amount he was asking for in light of revenue decline. Very revealing.

FWIW & probably not much - seriously...I appreciate the civil discussion. I think you're a smart dude even I rarely see eye to eye (with you) when it comes to O & the Dems.

Excuse me for a moment. I need to show my anonymous stalker some attention =

Don't get jealous Teddy...I'm just expressing some respect...No1 can ever take your special space.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

No, it doesn't. Debt is accumulated when receipts are lower than expenditures. Expenditures isn't the only side of the ledger that has been reduced. Revenues were also at their lowest level in decades - reached only 15% or less of GDP in the years following the economic collapse of 2008. Usually, revenues are in the 18-19% range. Had revenues been in that range, that would have reduced the deficit by roughly $500 billion a year. Republicans don't understand this even though it really isn't hard to understand.

Okay...Did some reading = IMO - O doesn't get credit for decrease in spending. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that is what you are conveying with this comment - "Spending dropped 8.5% since Obama took office."

Perhaps I mistook that statement as an innuendo suggesting O should get credit for spending decline & I am arguing with shadows.

In fact - spending has declined in spite of O = O has repeatedly proposed budgets more than 1 trillion beyond revenue capability. 2012 - 1.3, 2011 - 1.5, 2010 - 1.4.

Wow!

From some1 who said this in 2006;

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

.....To a POTUS proposing budgets which margin We the People more than a trillion each year.

That's quite an "evolved thinking".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Perhaps I mistook that statement as an innuendo suggesting O should get credit for spending decline & I am arguing with shadows.

You are indeed. By the same token, Obama cannot be accused for increased spending nor be blamed for the deficits. Either the House holds the purse or it doesn't.

[Karee 4,191]

You are indeed. By the same token, Obama cannot be accused for increased spending nor be blamed for the deficits. Either the House holds the purse or it doesn't.

Can Obama veto a budget that was passed by the house and the senate?

Edited October 14, 2013 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can Obama veto a budget that was passed by the house and the senate?

Sure, so? Does that take the responsibility off the House somehow?

[Karee 4,191]

Interesting. So if the house holds the "purse strings", how come they can't refuse to fund Obamacare?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting. So if the house holds the "purse strings", how come they can't refuse to fund Obamacare?

Because it's mandatory spending not subject to annual appropriations. Much like Medicare and Medicaid, it would take changes to Obamacare itself to rob it of its funding. The House passed it. As did the Senate. Back in 2010, remember? Now the House could certainly change the law. Lord knows they did. Multiple times. Just not going anywhere. That is what has the Tea Party types fuming.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

Ok cool. That makes sense. Thanks for answering my question and withholding the usual smart a$$ name calling. Much appreciated.