Okay, so the 1.3T a year from BTC and War is where in that link?

Whatever dude, stop jumping on semantics. The fact of the matter is, Bush era policy period, policies that promote exactly what the likes of Romney wants to do have left us with the deficit that we're dealing with, anything that Obama has tacked on is dwarfed by that.

It's not semantics. A claim was made that the deficit is the result of the BTC. I'm asking to see evidence of that claim. The deficit is 1.3T a year or so, I'd like to see how the BTC would eliminate it.

I didn't make that claim, I told you what I was posting for.

Well, to reply to your numbers seems a bit off topic so I'll just wait for the evidence of the statement then.

Your link only refers to the $60b/year as the effect on those making over $250k/year. So there's obviously room for more than that.

This graphic from the Washington Post is pretty explanatory. The cuts were supposed to cut revenue by $1.35b over those ten years, but revenue fell even more sharply than expected ("econ and tech reasons" being the CBO's version of shrugging their shoulders). So $1.2b as directly attributable to the two main tax cuts is probably reasonable. I don't know where the $1.8b came from.

Yeah, but even that figure is over 10 years. So BTC for 10y pays for 1 year of the current deficit spending. But that's not the claim that was made.

I said nothing of the sort, Lord Ben.

What I said was that Bush-era tax cuts at a time when we waged two wars put us into a deficit that wasn't previously there. I made no claim about eliminating the current deficit.

Instead of arguing about whose statistics and citations are the most accurate, I'd be more interested in you telling me where you attribute the difference between the federal surplus and subsequent deficit arising, if you're willing.

He said we have record deficits and you said the deficits exist because of the BTC. But if you meant that they'd be 1.2T instead of 1.3T I guess I just misread your words.

It hit a low point when you started calling people who disagree with your/Democrats agenda traitors though anyway. Time to stop participating in this thread.

He actually called Congress traitors, and specifically stated that he was applying that to both parties, LB. It wasn't because of their agenda, but because of their failure to put the national good ahead of partisan politics. A bit strong, I agree, and as irritated as I am with the current mix in Congress I wouldn't go that far. But what he's saying is not really much stronger than equating Obama's policies with the USSR, which was the other low point of this thread.

And he said that the deficit originated with the combination of tax cuts and increased military spending of the Bush era. I know a lot of conservatives who got upset with the Bush administration over this--it's not just liberal propaganda. I think we're all quite aware that revenue has dropped precipitously due to the recession, making the deficits much worse, so that it is no longer a simple matter of repealing said tax cuts and dropping our military spending to pre-2003 levels.

Aside from social justice, this whole issue is about taking steps to fix our burgeoning health expenditures, which like our military spending are a huge drag on our economy, and unlike our military spending directly impacts the competitiveness of American corporations and the hits the household economies of ordinary Americans in ways that are often financially crippling. If we can control health-care expenditures, corporations will have more money to invest in productive ways that will employ more people and pay them better, and households will have more money to spend on consumption, stimulating demand. Both of those things will help the economy revive, increasing revenues without the necessity of raising taxes or budgetary austerity.

Obamacare is a step in the direction of doing this. More reform will certainly be needed, in health care and in other areas, but it's a step in the right direction. If it works as designed, it will also help most people who currently can't afford health coverage afford it, without unduly impacting other sectors of society. If it doesn't work as designed, we will either fix it or replace it with something that works better. Meanwhile, it's been passed by Congress--our elected representatives--signed by the President--our elected leader--and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court--the check against infringement on our rights. It is being paid for, we hope, by creating tax incentives for everyone who ought to be buying into the insurance pool to buy in or offset their failure to do so by paying a modest tax. There is still considerable doubt about how the finances will work out, as there is with any program of this magnitude, but there is also continued scope for the program to be shaped, improved, or removed as appropriate, once we have a basis in experience (rather than mere projection) to evaluate its workings.

It is time to quit bickering about the PPACA, give our commander-in-chief a "cheery aye-aye," and roll up our sleeves and get to work!