What is blatant about it exactly? If it is so "blatant", explain and provide evidence. Otherwise, it is clearly only an unsupported "claim" at this point.
No, I don't trust it. I didn't see such an inference. The linked blog said the new tax revenues were going to new spending. It made no claim as to whether this was through expansion of existing programs or creation of new programs. You are missing something vital. The blogger is claiming the new taxes are going to be spent on expanding the existing budget, not on paying the costs of programs at the current levels. If the 1.6 trillion in new taxes only results in 400 billion in deficit reduction then we aren't doing something right. We can't afford to fund federal programs at current levels, expanding them by over a trillion dollars is hardly responsible. 1.6 trillion in new taxes should reduce the deficit by 1.6 trillion dollars. If Obama wants to spend more on new or expanded programs he needs to cut the funds from other parts of the budget, not in our wallets.
Smart, because it is totally bogus. Go to Session own website, then. His explanation admit that he adjusted the OMB's figures to manufacture the 1.4 billion. Check the edit I made to my earlier post. Neither the blog, nor Sessions own explanation can cite any list of how the money would be spent. It's all made up. And he has omitted any evidence that this claim is true. Well Obama has suggested nothing of the kind and Sessions doesn't even claim this. He uses tomfoolery to come up with this number and suggests that it is going to be spend on new programs.
I would like to know how ObamaCare and taxing the rich will fix this... Someone learn me something right now. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113033115035920.html "Tax revenue kept climbing, up 6.4% for the year overall, and at $2.45 trillion it is now close to the historic high it reached in fiscal 2007 before the recession hit. Mr. Obama won't want you to know this, but this revenue increase is occurring under the Bush tax rates that he so desperately wants to raise in the name of getting what he says is merely "a little more in taxes." Individual income tax payments are now up $233 billion over the last two years, or 26%" "Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would."
The subject is that your presumption of a claim is bogus is not grounded. The claim has merit as we spend more than we take in.... So if you have a 1.2 trillion shortfall, where do you suspect the new "revenue" will go? Pay for the gap, duh! New spending doesn't mean new programs. But I mean, you clearly disagree. We got it and have moved on. Or at-least, I have.
Look my point is this... whether Sessions claims or bogus or not is of little import. Your conclusions on why they are bogus are flawed. New tax revenue =/= deficit reduction. New spending =/= new programs.
I challeged the validity of his numbers and proved that Sessions adjusted the OMB numbers to arrive at his bogus numbers. Yes, I don't blame you.
It is the crux of the thread! If it is bogus, the all Sessions claims are invalid. They are not. The graph is bogus based on bogus numbers. Therefore his claims are bogus. Yes, I realize that the chart has multiple flaws and was intended to mislead. But when it has been proved to use bogus sources, the rest of them matter very little.
