• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I just think the word games are silly. Same thing with the esatate tax or death tax. Who cares what you call it. I would rather discuss the merits versus worry about the slogans from one side or the other.
 
I just think the word games are silly. Same thing with the esatate tax or death tax. Who cares what you call it. I would rather discuss the merits versus worry about the slogans from one side or the other.

You're right, I just find the term "class warfare" to be completely ridiculous. Even more insane than what wing-nuts on the right are usually saying.
 
Yes, you can thank LBJ for putting SS on budget or did you forget? Your benefits haven't been reduced because of those wars but the SS IOU's need to be funded. You really need to educate yourself and stop making foolish statements. I am a senior, collecting SS and know what my SS amount was going to be long before the wars. That amount hasn't changed.

Tax cuts for the rich didn't cause the debt, spending in the name of compassion did, i.e. War on Poverty

So our actual optional wars didn't create debt but the war on poverty, helping our own citizens did. I'll be waiting on your proof to back that up. LOL!
 
So our actual optional wars didn't create debt but the war on poverty, helping our own citizens did. I'll be waiting on your proof to back that up. LOL!

"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion". The Pentagon says it is less.

Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is $15 trillion dollars in debt. If spending $12 trillion on the American people helped them, why are there protesters trying to take over Wall Street? Not enough help? Do you think a few trillion more might do the trick?

Another day older and deeper in debt.
 
"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion". The Pentagon says it is less.

Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is $15 trillion dollars in debt. If spending $12 trillion on the American people helped them, why are there protesters trying to take over Wall Street? Not enough help? Do you think a few trillion more might do the trick?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Your post is confusing because the facts you presented don't have anything to do with your questions. Where do you get the notion that 12 trillion was spent on helping the American people rather then enabling bloated military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 30 years?
 


Nonsense. Liberals have tried to run a country and conservatives have done what they can to impede any progress. They are more bent on trying to make the president lose his job than help Americans regain theirs.
dow-drop-debt-ceiling-arra-budget.jpg

Noticed you didn't point to Bush's 14000 Dow but then again that would force you to admit that the President doesn't control the Dow. Amazing, isn't it, Obama approval rating in the upper 30's and low 40's with that great Dow? That should tell you something.
 
So our actual optional wars didn't create debt but the war on poverty, helping our own citizens did. I'll be waiting on your proof to back that up. LOL!

Nice diversion, you were talking about the wars taking away support for seniors. I have provided data but as usual you ignore it. My SS benefits didn't change because of the wars and the debt. You will find that to be true when you start collecting. Keep running from reality.
 
Congress approval rating is at 11% (Saw it on the news last night). Also, if neither president has anything to do with the Dow, why are you even arguing or bashing either president? Hell, you should be saying Obama did a good job because the economy is not his fault.
 
Congress approval rating is at 11% (Saw it on the news last night). Also, if neither president has anything to do with the Dow, why are you even arguing or bashing either president? Hell, you should be saying Obama did a good job because the economy is not his fault.

Congressional approval ratings are irrelevant since Congressional elections aren't national, they are local. How is your Representatives approval rating?

Since most liberals blame Bush for everything why is it wrong to blame Obama?
 
muRda;1059845883]Congressional Budget Office - Fact Sheet

I use it because the budgetary numbers take into account other micro and macroeconomic factors other numbers usually don't from what I've noticed. And they often do comparisons between budgets and actual results.

CBO is listed as non partisan but CBO takes assumptions given them by Congress or the Administration, isn't allowed to change them, and if assumptions are wrong so are the predictions. It provides non partisan information from partisan assumptions and that is why the data is seldom accurate. Suggest you chack out the history of CBO and their projections.

Investing in the Middle East was exciting (Cold War), then boring, then exciting again (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)?

The cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars have been 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years offset by the tax revenue collected from the businesses and individuals affected by those wars. Without those wars the debt would be 13.2 trillion today.


As one of the more powerful nations in the world, if there is no duty to ensure the rights to all citizens hoped for us in the Constitution of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then that is a failure of living up to the very ideals upon which this country was founded. What you see as wasteful spending on a lazy person, the liberal may see as spending on a mentally handicapped person. In a more grounded sense, the economy and society as a whole is worse off when its members are not contributing or are unable to. Society also owes a livelihood for those who become physically or mentally unable to contribute after they have spent their time in the working force (unless you want to just treat people like meat). The economic principle that gets stretched out to unjustifiable lengths by those on the right is freeloading, where an economic measure will always end up serving a portion not truly deserving of its creation.

SS and Medicare are contributory and that has nothing to do with my question as to why SS and and Medicare are on budget. where do you think your SS "contribution" is going?

I don't see how troops stationed internationally are defending this country. Also, relative to the military spending of other countries, I would think 10% would even be more than enough.

So you continue to be upset over the 700 billion dollar military budget but not the other items in the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Interesting. Do you understand what provide for the common defense and PROMOTE domestic welfare means?

Eliminating bases around the world wouldn't make a dent in that budget although I agree with you that they need to be cut back.

So confused.

If you are confused then don't use the term "conservative diatribe" if you cannot back up the statement

I'm probably going to look to move out of New York because it's expensive, too. That's usually what you get when you live near a major city in any country, let alone most populous.

So another tax payer leaving the state. I live near the 4th largest city in the nation and we aren't having a loss of population nor is the state of TX.
 
As usual you are apparently a guilty individual who complains about what others don't have as you work in your garden and do nothing to really help someone else. "Your" President voted for the bank bailout and filled his Administration with those Wall Street individuals you now want to hate. Instead of doing something constructive you simply want to blame someone else for the failure of others. Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress 2007-2011 and what was accomplished? Obama voted for the 2009 budget while in the Senate and had overwhelming numbers in Congress yet poverty increased yet what you do is ignore facts.

Obama and liberalism has done more to destroy the economy than any other President in History and the results show it. Keep buying the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results.

It looks like you are trying to get away from our conversation about the major role that wall street and the republicans have played in the economic decline of our country. Just between us unemployment effects revenues, lost revenues effect the deficit, The collapse of wall street effected peoples abilities to spend money= increased unemployment=less revenues=increased deficit.

Are you ready to dispute Wall Street's and the republican's role in the economic problems faced today? I know lets talk about the 47 million who pay no taxes but lets not address the reasons
 
Your post is confusing because the facts you presented don't have anything to do with your questions. Where do you get the notion that 12 trillion was spent on helping the American people rather then enabling bloated military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 30 years?

Tax cuts are not spending cuts. In fact there are tax cuts, or rather not paying any federal taxes at all, for almost 50% of the people despite them also using federal services.. Are you looking at that as an expense?

Yes, where did that $12 trillion go? You say it went toward helping the American people but it seems it was just pissed away on F.O.B., Friends of Barry. But now you have bragging rights to owning car companies and solar energy companies, among others I suppose.

You gotta give Obama credit in one area anyway. He's entrepreneurial.
 
Still waiting for an answer, do you believe 47% not paying any FIT means they are paying their fair share? Liberals supporting the class warfare are doing so mostly to keep their power and support for a large central govt. You seem to have this fixation with govt. revenue and the need for more money at the Federal level and the question is why? You think raising taxes raises GDP? What do you think will happen to state tax revenue when FIT taxes go up on the rich?
Like I mentioned earlier, yes, they are paying payroll and other taxes, no they aren't paying federal income tax but that's more a result of A) The Bush tax cuts because the number paying was higher pre-Bush Tax cut and B) because a large chunk of Americans are falling out of the middle class. I have a fixation with government revenue because we're running deficits. Nobody seems to want to cut Defense or Entitlements so either you raise revenue or you cut the small 25%ish of government spending that goes into essentials.

Yes governement spending creates economic growth. Computers improved over decades due to government spending. Satelites which pretty much led to a major communication boom were created and improved by NASA. The Internet was invented at a Public University not in some private company. The Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad led to the largest economic booms pre-modern age....one was completely government funded the other was based on government subsidies. It's not hard to prove how government in conjunction with private business creates tons of jobs and tons of new technology.

Please tell me how a President spends money without Congressional approval and I hope you don't believe that Congress doesn't spend money? 5 trillion dollars has been added to the debt since 2007. Who controlled the purse strings during that period of time?
I'm just using the same logic you are...I think it's faulty but YOU are the one that wants to look at deficits by Presidency. Since it's not convienient now you want to change it....
Reagan took over with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and it is 14.6 trillion now. Bush and Congress added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 YEARS and Obama will exceed that in four.
It's really difficult to argue this because Bush policies has been the main driver of debt during the Obama administration. Medicare Pescription plan, 2 wars and Bush tax cuts. PolitiFact Ohio | Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Bush tax cuts caused a substantial part of the deficit
Obama stimulus was 842 billion and he was left 350 billion of TARP, a program that he voted for. the 2009 budget was passed by a Democrat Congress with Democrat votes of which Obama was one. Obama then put the Department heads in place to spend that budet. Those tax cuts were targeted and were worthless. You got a rebate check if you worked and once it was spent it was gone. Suggest you learn exactly what those tax cuts were. Seems to me you are out of your league here and you are the one misinformed.

I agree tax cuts are generally worthless in spurring the economy.

The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
•$288 billion in tax cuts.
•$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
•$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

so 600 billion was low, it's not 900+billion like you've said.
 
It looks like you are trying to get away from our conversation about the major role that wall street and the republicans have played in the economic decline of our country. Just between us unemployment effects revenues, lost revenues effect the deficit, The collapse of wall street effected peoples abilities to spend money= increased unemployment=less revenues=increased deficit.

Are you ready to dispute Wall Street's and the republican's role in the economic problems faced today? I know lets talk about the 47 million who pay no taxes but lets not address the reasons

"Your" President hired many of those evil Wall Street individuals and put them in his Administration. Where is your outrage? Where is your outrage over the huge contributions to "your" President. Obama had total control of the Congress for 2 full years and Congress was under total Democrat control for 4 so what did he and they do to correct the problems you claim exist? So to claim it is a Republican role only is disengenuous and total partisan bull****.

You want to now talk about the 47 million that don't pay FIT? It is more like 65 + million but who is counting? I don't care who is paying what, you are the one claiming the govt. needs more revenue. 53% of the income earners will never be able to fund the liberal spending appetite
 
iliveonramen;1059846683]Like I mentioned earlier, yes, they are paying payroll and other taxes, no they aren't paying federal income tax but that's more a result of A) The Bush tax cuts because the number paying was higher pre-Bush Tax cut and B) because a large chunk of Americans are falling out of the middle class. I have a fixation with government revenue because we're running deficits. Nobody seems to want to cut Defense or Entitlements so either you raise revenue or you cut the small 25%ish of government spending that goes into essentials.

The repeal the entire Bush tax cuts not just those on the rich. Interesting how you ignore those moving out of the middle class into the upper class. As for running deficits stop spending and that won't be a problem. Obama budgets are 600 billion a year more than Bush's 2008 budget thus the baseline is 3.7 trillion. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget?


Yes governement spending creates economic growth. Computers improved over decades due to government spending. Satelites which pretty much led to a major communication boom were created and improved by NASA. The Internet was invented at a Public University not in some private company. The Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad led to the largest economic booms pre-modern age....one was completely government funded the other was based on government subsidies. It's not hard to prove how government in conjunction with private business creates tons of jobs and tons of new technology.

20% of GDP is govt. spending so tell me who pays for that govt. spending? Spending offset by debt creates a net gain of zero.


I'm just using the same logic you are...I think it's faulty but YOU are the one that wants to look at deficits by Presidency. Since it's not convienient now you want to change it....

It's really difficult to argue this because Bush policies has been the main driver of debt during the Obama administration. Medicare Pescription plan, 2 wars and Bush tax cuts. PolitiFact Ohio | Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Bush tax cuts caused a substantial part of the deficit

Deficits are yearly and if you are going to blame Bush for the Medicare Part D expense you better look at the Democrat alternative which was much higher. As for tax cuts, still waiting for you to explain your passion for increasing taxes and leaving the American people with less spendable income. Tax cuts aren't an expense and never will be.

I agree tax cuts are generally worthless in spurring the economy.

then you would be wrong and someone who doesn't know the components of GDP

The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
•$288 billion in tax cuts.
•$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
•$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

so 600 billion was low, it's not 900+billion like you've said.

I posted the breakdown on the tax cuts on this thread. Suggest you review them and then explain how they helped the economy especially since we have more unemployed today than when that stimulus was signed and when Obama took office. The actual number today is 842 billion dollars and was for shovel ready jobs. Guess the shovels weren't ready. 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans don't think the stimulus was successful
 
Last edited:
"Your" President hired many of those evil Wall Street individuals and put them in his Administration. Where is your outrage? Where is your outrage over the huge contributions to "your" President. Obama had total control of the Congress for 2 full years and Congress was under total Democrat control for 4 so what did he and they do to correct the problems you claim exist? So to claim it is a Republican role only is disengenuous and total partisan bull****.

You want to now talk about the 47 million that don't pay FIT? It is more like 65 + million but who is counting? I don't care who is paying what, you are the one claiming the govt. needs more revenue. 53% of the income earners will never be able to fund the liberal spending appetite
Let's let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy was far better under Clinton than Bush.

FactCheck.org: Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts

FactCheck said:
Summary

President Bush stumbled Feb. 19, saying the average tax cut is $1,089. The White House corrected that figure to $1,586. But the fact is that most Americans won't see anywhere near either of those amounts.
As we've said before when disputing equally misleading lowball figures given by Howard Dean, half of all individuals and families will get less than $470, and half will get more. The “average” is misleading because it is inflated by very large cuts given to a relative few at the top.
 
Let's let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy was far better under Clinton than Bush.

FactCheck.org: Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts

Again, so much passion for increasing taxes on taxpayers and the question is why? If you aren't part of the problem then you have been brainwashed into believing what the liberals tell you. Why would you ever support sending more money to D.C. to politicians that helped create the 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Do you really support a massive central govt. that provides for your every need or at least tries to?
 
Not to sound offensive, but I find it's next to impossible to debate true, hardcore liberals with facts, numbers, and other qualitative, quantifiable figures. They tend towards the emotional range of most arguments, rather than dealing with cold hard facts.

HOWEVER.

Here are some thoughts. Where does the majority of our government's spending money already come from? Middle class, lower class, or upper class? Well, let's see...there is virtually NO middle class anymore, so it can't be them, and the lower class pays no taxes, other than sales tax...so, it must already be coming from the upper crust folk, right? So then, if they are already paying the bulk of our budget...does it seem very fair to ask them to do more? There is an emotion based argument, and have at it.

Here is another thought. What do these super rich people do for a living? What does Warren Buffet do for a living? Does he run a company? Does that company employ people? The majority of the wealthy in this country are owners, operators, and board members of large, large companies. We're talking, companies that own other companies, that own other companies. Globally. Simple enough facts to grant...so here is a question. Warren Buffet aside, which of these old white men do you think is going to say, "Hey, the US just upped my tax amount each year by another 5%. I guess now I'll just have to settle for 5% less income now." Listen, these people didn't get rich by settling for that. They got rich because they are uncompromising men who only settled for the absolute best they could get. They are NOT going to take a paycut. They are going to cut expenses, and increase the cost of their products and services. This equals higher cost of living, and possibly greater levels of unemployment, or worse, UNDERemployment. Which is to say, people with masters degrees working at the checkout lane in grocery stores. Taxing the wealthy is, at best, a VERY temporary solution, and at worst, a short sighted nightmare. Now I'm not saying it's right that you have, say, 12 HUGE companies that own most everything in this country, and on this planet, and that to attack those companies profit margins results in ever lowering standards of living for us all...but that is the world we live in. You can't fix the top of a building without first making sure the foundation is secure, and our foundation is anything but, these days.

A closing thought...The real problem here, aside from the presence of mega corporations that are now legal people (LOL), is the fact that the US government is the single largest employer in the world, now. No other companies, hell, almost no other GROUPS of companies, employ as many people as the government does. That is a pyramid scheme. If most of the people are employed by a firm that doesn't produce profits, where does the payroll come from? From the other people working there, and the minority of the rest of us that DON'T have cushy government jobs. So, n a nutshell, would you say that it might be time to severely cut back the the single largest "company" in the land?
 
CBO is listed as non partisan but CBO takes assumptions given them by Congress or the Administration, isn't allowed to change them, and if assumptions are wrong so are the predictions. It provides non partisan information from partisan assumptions and that is why the data is seldom accurate. Suggest you chack out the history of CBO and their projections.
Funny how the numbers you posted for 2009 here...

are eerily similar to the numbers I posted here:
I said "much," not vast majority. 20% of the government budget goes to "Defense Discretionary." Mandatory spending makes up 55% of total expenditures, of which Social Security (35%), Medicare (27%), and Medicaid (13%) made up 76% (i.e. ~42% of the total spending) in 2011.

Congressional Budget Office - Budget and Economic Information

They're listed differently and under different topics but still roughly similar.

I also don't know where you read-in that the CBO takes assumptions from Congress. And having studied government accounting, I'd really rather not take information from a site that uses it for numbers, even if they be from the U.S. Treasury. It's a cluster**** I will loathe when I have to study for my remaining parts of the CPA exam.

The cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars have been 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years offset by the tax revenue collected from the businesses and individuals affected by those wars. Without those wars the debt would be 13.2 trillion today.
Okay, you're going from apples to oranges. I'm comparing military spending to military spending, not to overall spending.

SS and Medicare are contributory and that has nothing to do with my question as to why SS and and Medicare are on budget.
...because it's part of government expenditures?

where do you think your SS "contribution" is going?
A big pot in Washington.

So you continue to be upset over the 700 billion dollar military budget but not the other items in the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Interesting. Do you understand what provide for the common defense and PROMOTE domestic welfare means?
I care about waste just as much as you do, and one of the main areas of waste is defense spending. I fail to see how a concern in how 20% of the budget is spent is not something to be concerned about. And I guess not, please explain.

Eliminating bases around the world wouldn't make a dent in that budget although I agree with you that they need to be cut back.
That's the kind of assbackwards thinking that's going on in Washington right now. No one wants to cut anywhere, they just want to cut big.

If you are confused then don't use the term "conservative diatribe" if you cannot back up the statement
I was being sarcastic. I'm well aware of what it means and why I said it.

So another tax payer leaving the state. I live near the 4th largest city in the nation and we aren't having a loss of population nor is the state of TX.
Yes I pay taxes, and no, I'm not leaving simply because of taxes. That seems to be the easiest, go-to scapegoat tho. Again, you really oversimplify everything by saying either "it's taxes" or "it's Obama." Millions of variables are setting the conditions, not just the one in the headlines.

Speaking of conservative diatribes...
Not to sound offensive, but I find it's next to impossible to debate true, hardcore liberals with facts, numbers, and other qualitative, quantifiable figures. They tend towards the emotional range of most arguments, rather than dealing with cold hard facts.

Awesome how you lead with that, and then succeed in doing exactly what you accuse "the other side" of doing.
 
Last edited:
Not to sound offensive, but I find it's next to impossible to debate true, hardcore liberals with facts, numbers, and other qualitative, quantifiable figures. They tend towards the emotional range of most arguments, rather than dealing with cold hard facts.

HOWEVER.

Here are some thoughts. Where does the majority of our government's spending money already come from? Middle class, lower class, or upper class? Well, let's see...there is virtually NO middle class anymore, so it can't be them, and the lower class pays no taxes, other than sales tax...so, it must already be coming from the upper crust folk, right? So then, if they are already paying the bulk of our budget...does it seem very fair to ask them to do more? There is an emotion based argument, and have at it.

Here is another thought. What do these super rich people do for a living? What does Warren Buffet do for a living? Does he run a company? Does that company employ people? The majority of the wealthy in this country are owners, operators, and board members of large, large companies. We're talking, companies that own other companies, that own other companies. Globally. Simple enough facts to grant...so here is a question. Warren Buffet aside, which of these old white men do you think is going to say, "Hey, the US just upped my tax amount each year by another 5%. I guess now I'll just have to settle for 5% less income now." Listen, these people didn't get rich by settling for that. They got rich because they are uncompromising men who only settled for the absolute best they could get. They are NOT going to take a paycut. They are going to cut expenses, and increase the cost of their products and services. This equals higher cost of living, and possibly greater levels of unemployment, or worse, UNDERemployment. Which is to say, people with masters degrees working at the checkout lane in grocery stores. Taxing the wealthy is, at best, a VERY temporary solution, and at worst, a short sighted nightmare. Now I'm not saying it's right that you have, say, 12 HUGE companies that own most everything in this country, and on this planet, and that to attack those companies profit margins results in ever lowering standards of living for us all...but that is the world we live in. You can't fix the top of a building without first making sure the foundation is secure, and our foundation is anything but, these days.

A closing thought...The real problem here, aside from the presence of mega corporations that are now legal people (LOL), is the fact that the US government is the single largest employer in the world, now. No other companies, hell, almost no other GROUPS of companies, employ as many people as the government does. That is a pyramid scheme. If most of the people are employed by a firm that doesn't produce profits, where does the payroll come from? From the other people working there, and the minority of the rest of us that DON'T have cushy government jobs. So, n a nutshell, would you say that it might be time to severely cut back the the single largest "company" in the land?

Given a choice I would rather see my money going to government employees then to the failed Wall Street CEO,s who have shown their inability to manage. What group was responsible for the recession public employees or Wall Street CEO'S and their employess

Maybe saying they were not able to manage was less then accurate maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and what the impact on or economy would be and just didn't care as long as they could pad their bank accounts, what do you think?
 
Most people here say that taxes are the problem, but they really aren't. The problem is that spending has gone out of control. We could all thank Dubya Bush for that. First of all, you cannot have a war that you don't pay for, let alone two of them. What president goes to war and tells the American people "hey, this one's a freebie!". Secondly, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress how come none of them objected to the massive over-spending game? I know Democrats are guilty of it too, but the Republicans started it. And now they blame it all on the Democrats and Obamacare and the EPA or whatever they think it is. How come Republicans can get away with their spending but when Democrats do it it's an absolute tragedy? At least be consistent and actually practice what you preach.
 
Given a choice I would rather see my money going to government employees then to the failed Wall Street CEO,s who have shown their inability to manage. What group was responsible for the recession public employees or Wall Street CEO'S and their employess

Maybe saying they were not able to manage was less then accurate maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and what the impact on or economy would be and just didn't care as long as they could pad their bank accounts, what do you think?

Great, then write them the check instead of taking out Govt. admin fees. Funny how millions and millions of Americans have nothing invested in Wall Street. Think many poor people have investment accounts? This is an act on your part, isn't it?
 
muRda;1059846925]Funny how the numbers you posted for 2009 here...

What is funny is you don't know how to use the site. You can go to that site, home page and put whatever year you want and get the data. Suggest you do better research

are eerily similar to the numbers I posted here:

Numbers are what they are and that seems to be the problem with liberals who want to change the numbers. We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt and when you go to the Treasury site you will see SS and Medicare ON BUDGET

They're listed differently and under different topics but still roughly similar.

The issue remains, why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? What is different is that SS and Medicare shouldn't be on budget and then the rest of those items are funded by FIT.

I also don't know where you read-in that the CBO takes assumptions from Congress. And having studied government accounting, I'd really rather not take information from a site that uses it for numbers, even if they be from the U.S. Treasury. It's a cluster**** I will loathe when I have to study for my remaining parts of the CPA exam.

I suggest better research on CBO, their role and where they get their data.

Okay, you're going from apples to oranges. I'm comparing military spending to military spending, not to overall spending.

Military spending as part of total spending constitutes about 20% of the budget thus the question as to the role of the Federal Govt. vs the role of the state govt.


I care about waste just as much as you do, and one of the main areas of waste is defense spending. I fail to see how a concern in how 20% of the budget is spent is not something to be concerned about. And I guess not, please explain.

Does that really make sense to you, defense budget is 700 plus billion out of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and you really believe that is the only part of that budget with waste, fraud, and abuse?

Yes I pay taxes, and no, I'm not leaving simply because of taxes. That seems to be the easiest, go-to scapegoat tho. Again, you really oversimplify everything by saying either "it's taxes" or "it's Obama." Millions of variables are setting the conditions, not just the one in the headlines.

So, let's see, your Federal Taxes go up, what does that do to state revenue and what does that do to your take home pay? You telling me that if FIT goes up you aren't going to find a way to reduce state taxes? Best way to do that is to move to a state with no State income taxes. Businesses and people are doing that all the time. Research TX.

Speaking of conservative diatribes...

It isn't diatribe when actual non partisan data is posted.
Awesome how you lead with that, and then succeed in doing exactly what you accuse "the other side" of doing.

What is awesome is the ability to be whatever you want to be in this country and make as much money as you are capable of making.
 
Most people here say that taxes are the problem, but they really aren't. The problem is that spending has gone out of control. We could all thank Dubya Bush for that. First of all, you cannot have a war that you don't pay for, let alone two of them. What president goes to war and tells the American people "hey, this one's a freebie!". Secondly, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress how come none of them objected to the massive over-spending game? I know Democrats are guilty of it too, but the Republicans started it. And now they blame it all on the Democrats and Obamacare and the EPA or whatever they think it is. How come Republicans can get away with their spending but when Democrats do it it's an absolute tragedy? At least be consistent and actually practice what you preach.


So here we go again, blaming Bush, If Bush is responsible for spending during his term and added 4.9 trillion to the debt, why isn't Obama responsible for the spending in his term adding 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years? You cannot have it both ways. Deficits are yearly and come from yearly budgets. Bush deficits have nothing to do with Obama spending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom