The yoots

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
and increasing the national debt by $ 8 billion



Biden’s Deficit Spin



Fast forward to July, when the CBO was able to take into account the new spending approved by Biden. Instead of an $874 billion drop in deficits between 2020 and 2021, the deficit was then projected to drop just $126 billion — from $3.13 trillion to $3 trillion. Moreover, the combined deficits for 2021 and 2022 were projected to total nearly $4.2 trillion — $842 billion more than the February forecast.

“It’s pretty silly,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said of Biden’s deficit-cutting claims. “He [Biden] didn’t cut the deficit, he increased it.”

“They are taking credit for the fact that deficits fell in 2021-2022,” Goldwein said. “If they had done nothing, deficits would have fallen by $1 trillion. They fell by much less than they were going to.”

We should also note that while Biden credited “the budget I submitted” last year for reducing deficits, the FY 2022 budget Biden proposed in May 2021 did not become law. As we have explained in the past, president’s budgets are largely symbolic statements of priorities, not legislation on which Congress actually votes.

“Congress never did pass anything like Biden’s budget,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us via email. Congress “did finally pass an omnibus appropriations bill half way through the fiscal year,” he said. “But it funded most programs at prior year levels plus a small bump, and included none of Biden’s ambitious tax increases.”

Ultimately, CBO said FY 2021 ended with a deficit of nearly $2.8 trillion—about $360 billion less than the deficit in 2020. That’s similar to the $350 billion figure Biden uses. CBO noted that the deficit for 2021 ended up smaller than it had projected in July “mostly because income tax receipts were greater than CBO projected.”
 

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
No, it is the unreasonable that tune out and there is a deep state, the unelected senior bureaucrats entrenched within various agencies that will either thwart or ignore the Presidents desires/directives. Nowhere has the term lowly been used other then when speaking directly about you.

And care to show me where I said anything close to what you spew out.

Yep, he said it, probably wanted to do it, but couldn't because first thing that happened with in the Justice was Sessions recusing himself from anything and everything. This was important because there was only about a year or less under the statutes of limitations as to what Hillary had done. I know you don't understand that though.

Don't know what orifice you pull this out of but you again are wrong.

Are you really that stupid (rhetorical as I know you are). Ryan would never bring a full repeal to the floor and what he finally did get passed McCain shot down with his hyper-dramatic thumbs down on the chamber floor.

Pretty simple. The wall would have cost $21.6 billion to build. Doing so would have cut down the invasion we are dealing with significantly. And the remain in Mexico process would leave the burden on the side of the border. Currently, it is estimated our annual fiscal burden of providing essential services and benefits to illegal aliens costs American taxpayers nearly $151 billion each year. If the majority of that group was left over there our savings for them being there would pay for the construction, right?

Accomplishments, the JCTA as it helped a lot more than billionaires no matter what you think or say; Energy independence; No new wars.

And if elected, this would be his second first term as he wouldn't have a second term.


Where do you get that statute of limitations on Hillary? That is a bald face lie.

Your Mexico math doesn't add up to Mexico paying for the wall. You are now saying the money we save could be used to build the wall. A totally different story than Mexico will pay for the wall which is what Trump said. Nice mental gymnastics though.

You can't have a second first term. If you serve again it is your second term.

The TCJA gave corporations an even bigger tax cut than originally projected​


the tax cut has accomplished much less and cost much more than its proponents promised.

Based on previously debunked economic theory, the bill will reduce revenues by trillions of dollars over the decade. So far, the large corporate tax windfalls have gone mostly toward lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals, and there is little evidence that middle- and working-class families will see real benefits. At this point, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is more corporate tax cuts such as those that White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney suggested. Congress should work to reverse this trend of costly and ineffective cuts to corporations and put in place legislation that raises revenues in a progressive way.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Where do you get that statute of limitations on Hillary? That is a bald face lie.
Statute of limitations for non-capital offenses is 5 years from when the offense occurred or was discovered (generally, unless specifically stated within the statute).
Your Mexico math doesn't add up to Mexico paying for the wall. You are now saying the money we save could be used to build the wall. A totally different story than Mexico will pay for the wall which is what Trump said. Nice mental gymnastics though.
Sure it adds up, you just can't do maff. If we aren't spending the money and the problem stays in Mexico, who pays for it.
You can't have a second first term. If you serve again it is your second term.
Sure you can, old Grover Cleveland served as the 22nd and 24th. He had two first terms. It would only be a second term if consecutive.

The TCJA gave corporations an even bigger tax cut than originally projected​


the tax cut has accomplished much less and cost much more than its proponents promised.

Based on previously debunked economic theory, the bill will reduce revenues by trillions of dollars over the decade. So far, the large corporate tax windfalls have gone mostly toward lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals, and there is little evidence that middle- and working-class families will see real benefits. At this point, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is more corporate tax cuts such as those that White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney suggested. Congress should work to reverse this trend of costly and ineffective cuts to corporations and put in place legislation that raises revenues in a progressive way.
Yeah, what would anyone expect to be said by an organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues.
 

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Statute of limitations for non-capital offenses is 5 years from when the offense occurred or was discovered (generally, unless specifically stated within the statute).

Sure it adds up, you just can't do maff. If we aren't spending the money and the problem stays in Mexico, who pays for it.

Sure you can, old Grover Cleveland served as the 22nd and 24th. He had two first terms. It would only be a second term if consecutive.

Yeah, what would anyone expect to be said by an organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues.


So just doubling down on stupid i see.

Well done.

THE WALL DUMMY. He said Mexico would pay for a wall. How does a wall stay in Mexcio? Or are you saying we wouldnt need a wall.

Which would again be a contradiction of what Trump said "Mexico will pay for the wall"
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
So just doubling down on stupid i see.

Well done.
I could take stupid out to the nth degree and it wouldn't even scratch the surface of your stupidity. Your reign as dumber than a box of fecal matter still reigns supreme.
THE WALL DUMMY. He said Mexico would pay for a wall. How does a wall stay in Mexcio? Or are you saying we wouldnt need a wall.

Which would again be a contradiction of what Trump said "Mexico will pay for the wall"
Yep, he said Mexico would pay for it. He didn't say how. The wall was never going to be in Mexico (I guess in your mind you think Mexico was going to build it on their side of the border). And yes, we still need the wall.

Now back to the how. "How" would be that with the remain in Mexico policy, the number of illegal invaders would be significantly less then what has happened without the wall in place. As such our outlay for caring and dealing with the many thousands/millions of illegals would be significantly less then the current outlay estimated to be in the hundreds of billions annually. Thus Mexico would be dealing with those expenses or closing up their southern borders to halt them.
 

Pete

Repete
Yes. but you are stupid enough to not realize that is how it was designed and that for lower income earners the benefits you enjoyed will expire in 2025. Not true for billionaires and high earners.

As a residing billionaire I completely agree. How dare he give peasants a break even for 5 years.
 

Pete

Repete
Yes. but you are stupid enough to not realize that is how it was designed and that for lower income earners the benefits you enjoyed will expire in 2025. Not true for billionaires and high earners.

You are one of those jackasses who would bitch because someone did not donate both kidneys aren't you?
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
So just doubling down on stupid i see.

Well done.

THE WALL DUMMY. He said Mexico would pay for a wall. How does a wall stay in Mexcio? Or are you saying we wouldnt need a wall.

Which would again be a contradiction of what Trump said "Mexico will pay for the wall"
Actually doucheless they did. They put 30K mescan soldiers on the border to keep the invaders/future democraps OUT at their expense. It worked until day one of the ####suckers term.
 

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
I could take stupid out to the nth degree and it wouldn't even scratch the surface of your stupidity. Your reign as dumber than a box of fecal matter still reigns supreme.

Yep, he said Mexico would pay for it. He didn't say how. The wall was never going to be in Mexico (I guess in your mind you think Mexico was going to build it on their side of the border). And yes, we still need the wall.

Now back to the how. "How" would be that with the remain in Mexico policy, the number of illegal invaders would be significantly less then what has happened without the wall in place. As such our outlay for caring and dealing with the many thousands/millions of illegals would be significantly less then the current outlay estimated to be in the hundreds of billions annually. Thus Mexico would be dealing with those expenses or closing up their southern borders to halt them.


You've said the same thing twice and neither time have you explained how Mexico would pay for building a wall.

Try again.

No one said sh** about which side it would be on.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
More insults with no substance. All you are capable of other than deliberate lies.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump once predicted that a special prosecutor appointed during his administration would uncover “the crime of the century” — a conspiracy to sink his 2016 campaign.

Yet here are the results of the three-year probe by prosecutor John Durham: two trial acquittals — the latest on Tuesday — and a former FBI attorney sentenced to probation.

That has fallen far short of Trump supporters’ expectations that Durham would reveal a “deep state” plot behind the U.S. government’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The outcome has led to scrutiny over the purpose of Durham’s appointment by former Attorney General William Barr, who tasked him with sussing out misconduct in the Trump-Russia probe. It also has raised questions about whether or when the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, might move to rein in Durham’s work or hasten its completion.

“You really measure the success of an investigation by what it uncovers in terms of pernicious activity, and he’s uncovered nothing,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington University law professor and former senior Justice Department official.
Your stupidity is just unbelievable...and you actually believe the ignorant chit you spew? :shocking::shocking::shocked::shocked::twitch::twitch:
 
Top