12 Years Worth Of Credit Card Statements
By Mitch Berg
Since Slow Job brought it up last night – here is the record of spending for the past two administrations:
Via Instapundit
By the way – I missed this part of the debate last night, but Biden lied about his votes on both wars.
No wisecrack followups for either of those factoids.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
The Bush tax cuts were what exploded the deficit.
Yes, Biden voted to support both wars; he vote AGAINST the Bush Tax cuts at the same time however, because that meant the wars were not properly funded. So, he voted against the deficits from the wars.
You may recall that Cheney claimed deficits didn’t matter; and it is Ryan and Romney who are advocating repeating the same mistakes made by Dubya, using the same advisers as well as the same failed ideas.
Ryan, in contrast to Biden on the funding of the wars voted for expanding the deficit and not paying for the conflicts.
Which is what they were really talking about: Biden is more of a real deficit hawk, by his voting record, than Ryan is.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/17/708191/analysis-paul-ryan-votes-deficit/
From 2001 to 2008, Congress passed legislation that increased the national deficit by a total of $4 trillion — the number grows to $6 trillion if you add in the how much those policies have cost through 2011. Ryan voted for 90 percent of these deficit increasing bills.
What did Ryan vote to spend on? Here is a break-down of his votes:
– Beginning with the Bush tax cuts, since 2001 Ryan has voted to add $2.5 trillion worth of tax cuts to the deficit.
– In the last 11 years, Paul Ryan voted for every bill that called for an increase in defense spending. In total, this has added $1.9 trillion to the deficit.
– Paul Ryan also voted to increase non-defense discretionary spending — the very thing he is pushing to cut now. He voted to spend $270 billion on Medicare Part D (all of which was unpaid for). He also added $80 billion to the deficit by voting for an agriculture bill in 2002, and he added another $20 billion in 2003 when he voted for changes to military retirement. Lastly, he voted for increased borrowing authority for flood insurance, adding yet another $17 billion to the deficit.
Plus, Ryan’s plan won’t really balance the budget — at least not for the foreseeable future. The Tax Policy Center calculates that under Ryan’s budget plan, the federal government would only raise revenue totaling 15.8 percent of GDP. This would still make the deficit 4 percent of GDP by 2022.
Seriously, you guys need to trade in that fuzzy Republican math that doesn’t add up.
October 12th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Seriously, Penigma’s Chihuahua, you need to complete your long past due homework assignment.
October 12th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Penigma’s Chihuahua can you defend JFK’s tax cut’s? And while you are at it, explain how they brought in more revenue to the government?
Repeat the exercise for Reagan’s cuts.
Then differentiate both of them from Bush’s tax cuts.
More homework.
October 12th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
While you are at it, explain the difference between revenue and expenditures? How is one not like the other? Analyze the impact that changes on either side of the equation have on the deficit. Demonstrate that expenditures have remained constant so that the only impact on the deficit will be from the revenue side.
Finally, provide an analysis that demonstrates that tax rate changes have a linear impact on revenue. Or alternatively, that tax rate changes do not linearly impact revenue.
Perhaps then you can show us a fact check ability and that math is hard…..
October 12th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
When Dog Gone looks for economic analysis that comports with what she already believes, she really has to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
The “Think Progress” post gets all of its information from a “Center For American Progress” post, which puts government spending and tax cuts on equal footing with regard to increasing the federal deficit. Which is something you would do if you didn’t know anything about “economics” besides “its one of those larger words, right?”.
Written by someone who coined the term “deficit peacock”, which I guess is what you do when you can’t formulate a persuasive argument: you call people names. This person has a degree in “Public Policy”. Awesomely economical? Well, no.
So, who would you contact at CAP if you wanted their “expert” on the topic of “the economy”? Why Associate Director, Press Relations, Katie Peterson:
http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/peters-katie/bio/
“Katie graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a degree in education and German”
Supercali-financial-ious? Also no.
It seems that Dog Gone goes to like minded folks to get the information she wants to believe. But I think we knew that already. :-/
October 12th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Well, Dog Gone, would you like to explain your fact checking regarding a post by Kermit and your claim that his non de plume is Kermit?
Or are you too much of a coward?
October 12th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
What Biden lied about on the two war and medicare was what really caused the economic crisis was the lack of reform to freddie mac and freddie mae.
What caused that? Oh the democrats like Obama, Frank, Waters, Dodd, and others saying that reform wasn’t needed and didn’t do anything. I guess they don’t want to show that Bush wanted to reform the one thing that caused the problem and that it was the Democrats fault.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2012 at 6:08 am
The war is spending one trillion dollars over the course of ten years, or about 100 billion per year.
A significant amount but, only about 1/10th the entire debt we are building up over that same ten years. We need to spend less and I’m very happy to hear that DG has now become a budget hawk. Perhaps she could tell us how social security works without changes when we have even fewer workers than those collecting benefits.
October 13th, 2012 at 6:25 am
When Bush made his proposal for Medicare part D, he was countering a larger more expensive program that the Democrats wanted. Democrats voted against the program ONLY because they wanted their own larger more expensive program.
Bush shouldn’t have done it, as he shouldn’t have done any other reaching across the aisle, because he: A) spent money we didn’t have B) got kicked in the teeth repeatedly by the Dems for passing their type of legislation.
October 13th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
JPMN wrote:
The war is spending one trillion dollars over the course of ten years, or about 100 billion per year.
I am afraid that the current regime believes that the U.S. can maintain its place the world’s hierarchy of military powers by using only targeted assassinations and commando raids.
Or maybe they don’t believe that all, but that is all they are willing to do.
October 14th, 2012 at 11:35 am
There’s no point arguing with a drunk in a bar. Once she gets an idea fixed in his head, no facts, no reasoning will shake it. This is a similar situation.
The “deficit” is not the “debt,” yax RATE cuts are not tax REVENUE cuts and nickel-and-dime changes to military spending are dwarfed by Social Security and Obamacare. None of that matters. Everything is Bush’s fault.
And she’ll have another . . . .