Don't worry, it's just 626 Billion

[watermock]

Senate closing in on $626 billion spending bill
Posted 14m ago | Comments 3 | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print |


Enlarge by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

Sen. John McCain, R-AZ., left, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY., right, speak during their news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Dec. 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)



By Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The Senate comes in shortly after a snowy dawn to vote on legislation ensuring that the troops are armed and the jobless don't lose their benefits -- and to take one more step toward a Christmas week showdown over health care.
The planned early morning vote Saturday on the $626 billion defense spending bill and sundry other must-pass matters was the outcome of an acrimonious struggle between Democrats determined to pass a health care bill this year and Republicans intent on using delaying tactics to stop them.

The defense bill itself, which contains $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a 3.4 percent pay raise for the military, enjoyed wide support.

But there was GOP discontent over the Democratic decision to use the bill as the engine to carry several short-term extensions of programs set to expire because of the failure of Congress to deal with them separately.

Those include two-month extensions of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, health care subsidies for those out of work, highway and transit funding, three provisions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and legislation shielding doctors from a steep cut in Medicare payments.

"The Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate held this bill for the troops captive," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "They knew that at the end of the year, they would stuff unrelated, must-pass legislation, which has nothing to do with the Department of Defense, or the men and women in the military ... so they could get it passed."

Democrats in turn scolded Republicans for forcing a 1 a.m. vote Friday to end a GOP-led filibuster and then requiring the full 30 hours, under Senate rules, before a final vote could be staged. Republicans have acknowledged they will use every means possible to stop the health care bill from coming to a final vote this year.

Republicans are "using the military, the soldiers, as pawns in this political game," said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

"We know that we are upon the holiday season here, although here in this chamber, it certainly doesn't feel that way," commented Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "There is no sense of giving and sharing and the general cooperation and cheeriness that comes at least in my family with the holiday season."

Before leaving for the holidays, the Senate must deal with one other politically sensitive issue, raising the debt ceiling, currently at $12.1 trillion, so the Treasury can continue to borrow.

The defense bill is the last of 12 annual spending bills that Congress must pass for the budget year that began Oct. 1. The bill passed the House on Wednesday by 395-34, but Senate inaction, while not likely, could force the Pentagon to shut down programs.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday issued a joint statement urging immediate passage because the latest stopgap measure to fund the Pentagon expired at midnight Friday. "Passage today will provide important support for our foreign policy and national security priorities and ensure continuity of funding for our troops in combat and for all of the Department of Defense," they said.

The bill contains $104 billion for weapons procurement. It has $6.8 billion to procure 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters while providing $465 million to develop an alternative engine for that plane, a program that the Pentagon and President Barack Obama had tried to kill.

It does shut down programs for the F-22, a fighter the Pentagon considers ill-suited for today's insurgency warfare, and an expensive presidential helicopter.

The president has yet to request funds for his recently announced troop increase in Afghanistan, and there is no money in the bill for that.

The measure also trims personnel and maintenance accounts from previous versions of the measure to pump up weapons procurement for Afghanistan and Iraq by almost $2 billion.

The defense measure would trim $900 million from the Pentagon's $7.5 billion budget to train Afghan security forces. It would use the money to buy about 1,400 additional mine-resistance vehicles suited for rugged conditions in Afghanistan. Lawmakers say the training program can't absorb that much money in the coming year, so they used it for other purposes.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted 14m ago E-mail | Save |

[watermock]

BTW, our GDP is hovering around 3 trillion.

The defense measure would trim $900 million from the Pentagon's $7.5 billion budget to train Afghan security forces. It would use the money to buy about 1,400 additional mine-resistance vehicles suited for rugged conditions in Afghanistan. Lawmakers say the training program can't absorb that much money in the coming year, so they used it for other purposes.

Outstanding!

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by watermock

BTW, our GDP is hovering around 3 trillion.




Outstanding!

Our GDP is around $14T.

The Federal Budget is $3T.

[watermock]

I was thinking of the tax base.

I believe overall taxe revenue will only be around 2.5 trillion this year.

I just used the wrong term.

15 trillion is pathetic as well.


IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income
Updated 5/27/2009 10:20 AM | Comments 298 | Recommend 45 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


ShareYahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe myYahoo iGoogleMore Netvibes myAOL
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY
Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

"These are staggering numbers," Lynch says.

Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

"It's one of the drivers of the ongoing expansion of the federal budget deficit," says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's Investors Service. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.7 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009.

The other deficit driver is government spending, which, the AIER's report says, is the main culprit for the federal budget deficit.

The White House thinks that tax revenue will increase in 2011, thanks in part to the stimulus package, says the report from AIER, an independent economic research institute. But it warns, "Even if that does happen, the administration also projects that government spending will be so much higher each year that large deficits will continue, and the national debt held by the public will double over the next 10 years."

The government may have a hard time trimming spending to reduce the deficit when the recession ends. The 77 million Baby Boomers— those born in 1946 through 1964 — will start tapping their federal retirement benefits soon, which means increased government outlays for Social Security and Medicare.

"It will be doubly difficult for federal government to reduce expenditures and narrow the deficit as rapidly as they did following previous recessions," Lonski says. At the end of the last major recession, in 1981, Boomers were in their 30s. Their incomes were expanding, as was their appetite for goods and services.

The Boomers now are in their 50s and 60s and unlikely to keep increasing incomes for long, which means that revenue from income taxes could flatten in the next few years. Also, Lonski says, they are more likely to save for retirement than spend — and consumer spending is a big driver of the economy.

"The American consumer led us out of previous recessions with some semblance of gusto," Lonski says. "They're too old to do it now."

Yahoo! Buzz Mixx Posted 5/26/2009 9:03 PM
Updated 5/27/2009 10:20 AM E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |
To report corrections and clarifications, contact Reader Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

[watermock]

Many people are simply choosing not to pay their taxes, they don't have the money.

1/3 of homeowners are upside down.

[Meck77]

The democrats voted themselves another George Bush. Congrats.

[peacepipe]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/18/...litary-health/

After Falsely Accusing Obama Of Politicizing The Military, GOP Filibusters Defense Bill To Kill Health Reform

Over the past few days, Republican senators have seized on a false story manufactured by a former Republican operative at The Weekly Standard. The unfounded rumor alleged that sources in the White House had told Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote for health reform, or else the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska would be closed. Using the story, Republican senators quickly accused the President of politicizing the military:

SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO): “The rumors out there, we haven’t confirmed it, but the rumor keeps coming back that he’s threatened to close a major air base in Nebraska. It is total blackmail. It’s the worst kind of Chicago politics.” [WND, 12/17/09]

SEN. BOB BENNETT (R-UT): “This would be one of the most outrageous demonstrations of presidential power I’ve ever seen.” [The Hill, 12/17/09]

LETTER FROM 20 GOP SENATORS: “We do not want to see the name of a base from our state on a BRAC list and think it has been put there to settle partisan scores.” [The Hill, 12/17/09]

Talking to reporters, Nelson blasted the phony story as “yellow journalism at its worst” that came from “inside-the-Beltway partisans who only want to derail health care reform.” But last night, in the middle of their own campaign to portray Obama as politicizing the military, Republicans performed a stunt of galling hypocrisy.

In order to obstruct health reform, Republican senators moved to politicize the nation’s national security by holding the Defense appropriations bill hostage. The Washington Post reported on this “unusual” tactic:

Senate Republicans failed early Friday in their bid to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move designed to delay President Obama’s health-care legislation. On a 63 to 33 vote, Democrats cleared a key hurdle that should allow them to approve the must-pass military spending bill Saturday and return to the health-care debate. After years of criticizing Democrats for not supporting the troops, just three Republicans supported the military funding.
Explaining his opposition to military appropriations, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) said bluntly, “I don’t want healthcare.”

In their desperate bid to kill health reform, Republicans are using the military as a political football. Not only are they making up a story about a nonexistent base-closure threat, but they tried to hold up the funding of the military as part of a cynical plot to slow the health reform debate

[cutthemdown]

Repubs would have voted for a defense only bill right away. It's just a political game dems are doing to stick it to Repubs who had the power and did this sort of thing to them. It's not a new way of doing business, it's business as usual. To the victors go the spoils. Dems already know they will lose the 60 majority pretty soon so they have to push what they can now.

Great move by them tacking on unemployment etc to the defense bill so they could use the troops to make repubs look bad.

Dems doing a good job at pushing there agenda quickly.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Repubs would have voted for a defense only bill right away. It's just a political game dems are doing to stick it to Repubs who had the power and did this sort of thing to them. It's not a new way of doing business, it's business as usual. To the victors go the spoils. Dems already know they will lose the 60 majority pretty soon so they have to push what they can now.

Great move by them tacking on unemployment etc to the defense bill so they could use the troops to make repubs look bad.

Dems doing a good job at pushing there agenda quickly.

If it were the other way around you'd be crucifying the dems.

[mhgaffney]

The bumper sticker on my truck reads:

UNDER THE REPUBLICANS MAN EXPLOITS MAN.

UNDER THE DEMOCRATS ITS JUST THE OPPOSITE.

[barryr]

Yes, to get out of debt, spend even more money. Just makes so much sense.

[mhgaffney]

Someone posted this billboard in rural Missouri.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Repubs would have voted for a defense only bill right away. It's just a political game dems are doing to stick it to Repubs who had the power and did this sort of thing to them. It's not a new way of doing business, it's business as usual. To the victors go the spoils. Dems already know they will lose the 60 majority pretty soon so they have to push what they can now.
Great move by them tacking on unemployment etc to the defense bill so they could use the troops to make repubs look bad.

Dems doing a good job at pushing there agenda quickly.

A majority of the seats up for grabs are in the south, the rest are toss ups with the exception of CA,any state in the N. East. hell,if everything goes well rubio & christ will get a dem sen elected in FL.

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Someone posted this billboard in rural Missouri.

If only more poeple would put the first two steps in action.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Meck77

The democrats voted themselves another George Bush. Congrats.

Well the Repub and the Supreme court voted for and selected GW Bush whose tax cuts for the wealthy and Iraq invasion, war, and occupation cost this nation over 7 trillion dollars! Who would have ever thought that Republicans were so fiscally irresponsible.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Dukes

If only more poeple would put the first two steps in action.

If only had more people rose up and rebelled when the Supreme Court selected 7 Trillion Dollar Deficit GW Bush, we the people would not find ourselves in the mess we are in today. Oh well well come to the aftermath of Tsunami Bush and his merry band of corporate predatory fascist!

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

A majority of the seats up for grabs are in the south, the rest are toss ups with the exception of CA,any state in the N. East. hell,if everything goes well rubio & christ will get a dem sen elected in FL.

History tells us Obama will lose his fillibuster proof majority. Americans feel uneasy about how Obama is doing things.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

History tells us Obama will lose his fillibuster proof majority. Americans feel uneasy about how Obama is doing things.

When Reagan and GW Bush lost the fillibuster proof majority they just simple used the "Reconcilliation vote/option" of only needing 50 plus votes to get their tax cuts legislation for the richiest 2%. Why can't Obama use Reconcillation options just GW and Reagan have done?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by rastaman

When Reagan and GW Bush lost the fillibuster proof majority they just simple used the "Reconcilliation vote/option" of only needing 50 plus votes to get their tax cuts legislation for the richiest 2%. Why can't Obama use Reconcillation options just GW and Reagan have done?

To be honest I am not informed enough on how it all works to answer that. I don't understand what and what can't be used through reconciliation.

[cutthemdown]

Ok Rasta just talked to someone who says that in order to use reconciliation the legislation has to not increase spending or effect a net increase in money. So unless dems can show the stuff they pass through reconciliation doesn't cost any money they can do it.

What are you thinking falls under that?

[cutthemdown]

So my understanding would be somehow Ronald Reagens must have got the CBO to say his tax cuts would increase revenue, or not add to deficit? Rasta I am just guessing cause like I said I'm no expert on Congressional rules.

[peacepipe]

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond ten years after the reconciliation measure.Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.[3]

Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed

Unfortunatly senate republicans in '96 change the standard by which reconcilliation can be used.