We spend 3.5 trillion and take in 2.4 trillion. You re-look at the chart and do the very simple math. Unless you know of specific cuts Obama plans to make, I see no reason so suggest anything other than spending staying the same or increasing...
The chart is bogus. Best forget the chart and any number on it. The budget is still being negotiated, so quit trying to guess.
I have not seen any evidence that supports that statement yet. Only a statement that his staffers adjusted some numbers in making the chart. Adjustments happen in every study. Whether the adjustments were meritous are not is another matter, so if you can demonstrate evidence that the Sessions staff did an analysis like the one the Brookings Institute did of the Romney tax plan I'll agree with your assertion. I doubt the graph anyway, but you have demonstrated no proof that Sessions is lied. Of course you did. You said Sessions said Obama was calling for a trillion plus dollars in new programs. Sessions said no such thing. He said that Obama wants a trillion dollars in new spending. You took this to mean new programs, which nobody has mentioned, but you. No he didn't. He was talking about new spending. If the Workforce Investment act goes from being a $50 billion dollar program to a $100 billion program that is $50 billion dollars in new spending. Yes. His misunderstanding is that new spending = new debt. That isn't always the case. Your misunderstanding is 1) that new spending does not equal new programs, and 2) new spending that is paid for reduces the deficit. First there is no budget, so don't act like we are talking about budgeted spending. Obama has failed to produce even 1 budget. Second that is not true. The money we get from selling debt is revenue. I think what you mean is that money raised from new taxes is money that does not have to be borrowed. Which is only true if you don't further increase spending, which Obama is going to do. He is going to take more of our money, and instead of reducing the deficit with it he is going to spend the shit our of it, and if there is any less he will reduce the deficit a little. If you have a projected 8 trillion dollar deficit over ten years, take in an estimated 1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the same ten years, then spend an additional 1.2 trillion over those ten years, your deficit reduction amounts to 40 billion a year. In accounting that is called an immaterial difference.
I have discredited the graph and its source adequately. Either Sessions lied or he is stupid. The Workforce Investment Act expired in 2003 and has not been re-authorized. Are you talking about the state workforce investment boards? The money we get from selling debt is revenue, but it is borrowed. We have to pay back every cent with interest. Of course. When I said revenue I meant the new tax revenue that is the topic being discussed. Not borrowed money. OK, lets accept for the sake or argument that the numbers you use are valid. An conscientious accountant would call it a deficit reduction. "Immaterial difference" is subjective spin.
You saying you have discredited over and over again does not equate to actually discrediting it. Where is your source? No I am talking about the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It has not been re-authorized since 2003, but has been funded annually. The DOL distributed over a billion dollars in WIA funds to the states last year. https://www.federalregister.gov/art...nvestment-act-wagner-peyser-act-and-workforce Glad we agree. Reducing 8 trillion in projected new debt by 400 billion dollars is not going to solve any of the nations financial woes. We both know this. We need spending cuts in the trillions of dollars. Obama is not willing to do this.
Deficit reduction plan? You make $50000 and You spend $75000 a yr. you get a $10000 a year raise you promise to only spend $80000 next yr. . My deficit reduction plan just saved me $5000. Gubmnt math.
The source is Jeff Sessions and I linked to it. You really should read the links. We don't agree but you have to accept the facts. The GOP is not willing to make huge cuts to entitlements or defense either and The People would not support it. But we can make a number of smaller cuts and new taxes and it adds up quickly. $400 Billion is not chump change and it IS deficit reduction.
Sessions says they adjusted some numbers. Pretty standard. Were his adjustments valid? I don't know. What I do know is you have proved nothing. You just keep saying Sessions made this up. Has his methodology been made public? How do you know it is faulty? So know you reject that revenue from selling debt is revenue, and that you weren't only talking about taxes? Well then, expose them as hypocrites. They are saying they want cuts to the entitlements. they proposed a budget that cut Medicare just last year. The people are wrong lots of times. Look at all the assholes we keep sending to Washington. Wanting government freebies is not a good reason to cripple the nation. A number of smaller cuts and new taxes will not make the budget sustainable. Massive cuts to defense and entitlement reform are necessary. Cutting 40 billion a year out of a 3,500 billion dollar budget is chump change.
