Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2015, why? Why do we need that big of a govt?

I dunno, but I believe that's up 12.17% since 2008. Thats an average growth rate of about 2%/yr (about the same as our inflation rate). Budget growth under Bush was over 4% a year.

Of course you are going to hate my source. It's the Heritage Foundation. The Federal Budget, 1994

I wonder how much spending went up each year under Reagan? Hmmm.

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
I dunno, but I believe that's up 12.17% since 2008. Thats an average growth rate of about 2%/yr (about the same as our inflation rate). Budget growth under Bush was over 4% a year.

Of course you are going to hate my source. It's the Heritage Foundation. The Federal Budget, 1994

I wonder how much spending went up each year under Reagan? Hmmm.

The last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion dollars, Obama's budget is 800 billion dollars more with low inflation. Never said the Bush budget was a good one either. tell me why we need this big of a Federal Govt? It seems that it is the Federal Taxpayers who are asked to do more with less, not the Federal Govt. You don't have a problem with that?

I also know that this reality escapes you but 9/11 happened the first year of Bush and cost the Treasury over a trillion dollars and then there was two wars. Now you can argue the benefits of both but that doesn't change the fact that there are no wars now but a request for 3.9 trillion dollars

j-mac · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
I dunno, but I believe that's up 12.17% since 2008. Thats an average growth rate of about 2%/yr (about the same as our inflation rate). Budget growth under Bush was over 4% a year.

Of course you are going to hate my source. It's the Heritage Foundation. The Federal Budget, 1994

I wonder how much spending went up each year under Reagan? Hmmm.

Oh, wait right there...you think that conservatives, not Republican's, Conservatives think that Republican's didn't grow government just as fast as Demo's over the past 50 years? Ha!

The problem there is that Republican's whom used to stand for their principles started listening to demo's telling them the only way to win was to increase 'goodies' to the masses...It was, and is a failure.

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
The last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion dollars

According to the link, in 2008 (Bush was POTUS for every day of that year), the government spent $3.25 trillion. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the government spent 2.36 trillion. That's nearly a trillion dollar increase. But maybe my source was just making up numbers, because they are so liberal and everything.

Obama's budget is 800 billion dollars more with low inflation.

More like $650 billion according to the Heritage foundation, but who's counting. Maybe the Heritage Foundation just makes up numbers.

Never said the Bush budget was a good one either. tell me why we need this big of a Federal Govt? It seems that it is the Federal Taxpayers who are asked to do more with less, not the Federal Govt. You don't have a problem with that?

How about Reagan then, was he not a good one either?

Maybe this will explain his spending a little:

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

And my source for that? The Free Market | Mises Institute Another leftist organization.

And I just noticed, who the heck proofreads what these organizations put out? "Jimmy Carner"? Who's that?

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

j-mac said:
Oh, wait right there...you think that conservatives, not Republican's, Conservatives think that Republican's didn't grow government just as fast as Demo's over the past 50 years? Ha!

The problem there is that Republican's whom used to stand for their principles started listening to demo's telling them the only way to win was to increase 'goodies' to the masses...It was, and is a failure.

Exactly when was it that republicans or conservatives stood up for low spending?

they talk the talk, but NEVER walk the walk.

And since you are attempting to make the point that republicans aren't conservative, can you point me to any conservative POTUS who has restrained spending? Any?

j-mac · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
Exactly when was it that republicans or conservatives stood up for low spending?

they talk the talk, but NEVER walk the walk.

And since you are attempting to make the point that republicans aren't conservative, can you point me to any conservative POTUS who has restrained spending? Any?

Oh please don't look to me to defend Republican's and their spending...They in my eyes are just as damned responsible for this mess that the country is in, as demo's are.

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep;1064222927]According to the link, in 2008 (Bush was POTUS for every day of that year), the government spent $3.25 trillion. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the government spent 2.36 trillion. That's nearly a trillion dollar increase. But maybe my source was just making up numbers, because they are so liberal and everything.

I don't have any idea who your source is but mine is the Treasury Department

More like $650 billion according to the Heritage foundation, but who's counting. Maybe the Heritage Foundation just makes up numbers.

Maybe but mine is the Treasury Department. A lot of good valuable information that from the bank account of the United States

How about Reagan then, was he not a good one either?

Probably not in the liberal world for he cut taxes, grew income tax revenue over 60% and created 17million private sector jobs. His military spending went from 300 billion to 500 billion and that created a peace dividend for your favorite President, Clinton who wasted it

Maybe this will explain his spending a little:

Not really because it is out of context which is what liberals always do, first of all show me the spending proposal in the Reagan stimulus plan. Cannot wait to see that one. What really happened in the Reagan stimulus was ALL TAX CUTS and that led to job creation and millions of new taxpayers giving Congress a lot of money to spend. Reagan spent on destroying the Soviet Union which he did leaving Clinton a peace dividend. The stimulus however put 17 million Americans back to work and had nothing to do with govt. spending

And my source for that? The Free Market | Mises Institute Another leftist organization.

Great, now put the article into context especially with the double dip Reagan inherited

Oh, by the way, ask Tip ONeil how much money the Congress spent over what Reagan wanted. The Reagan stimulus created enough revenue to fund the military expansion but not the addition that Congress wanted and spent

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

j-mac said:
Oh please don't look to me to defend Republican's and their spending...They in my eyes are just as damned responsible for this mess that the country is in, as demo's are.

Yea, we would be much better of if we had third world levels of government spending. Damn the burden of having roads, and education, and a world class military.

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
I don't have any idea who your source is but mine is the Treasury Department

Maybe but mine is the Treasury Department. A lot of good valuable information that from the bank account of the United States

Probably not in the liberal world for he cut taxes, grew income tax revenue over 60% and created 17million private sector jobs. His military spending went from 300 billion to 500 billion and that created a peace dividend for your favorite President, Clinton who wasted it

Not really because it is out of context which is what liberals always do, first of all show me the spending proposal in the Reagan stimulus plan. Cannot wait to see that one. What really happened in the Reagan stimulus was ALL TAX CUTS and that led to job creation and millions of new taxpayers giving Congress a lot of money to spend. Reagan spent on destroying the Soviet Union which he did leaving Clinton a peace dividend. The stimulus however put 17 million Americans back to work and had nothing to do with govt. spending

Great, now put the article into context especially with the double dip Reagan inherited

Oh, by the way, ask Tip ONeil how much money the Congress spent over what Reagan wanted. The Reagan stimulus created enough revenue to fund the military expansion but not the addition that Congress wanted and spent

Can you link to your treasury department source?

I find it hard to believe that either Mises or Heritage is just making up numbers. Maybe one of us is misreading the numbers (I find this to be the case often). A lot of times, people will look at the wrong years, thinking that since Obama was elected in 2008, 2008 should be attributed to him, or something like that. It's a perfectly natural mistake.

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
Yea, we would be much better of if we had third world levels of government spending. Damn the burden of having roads, and education, and a world class military.

Is this a joke or are you really this poorly informed. The Federal Govt. doesn't fund schools and only supports the highway system through the Federal Excise taxes on gasoline. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Teachers, schools, police, fire fighters, roads are expenses paid for by state and local taxes. Federal taxes fund the Dept. of Education which is a waste of money, and the Interstate highway system which was paid for decades ago. The only thing you got right is the 750 billion dollar military not try again and this time try being honest.

j-mac · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
Yea, we would be much better of if we had third world levels of government spending. Damn the burden of having roads, and education, and a world class military.

Is that all you got Scott? You have to put words in my mouth? Show me were I said any of that?

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
Can you link to your treasury department source?

I find it hard to believe that either Mises or Heritage is just making up numbers. Maybe one of us is misreading the numbers (I find this to be the case often). A lot of times, people will look at the wrong years, thinking that since Obama was elected in 2008, 2008 should be attributed to him, or something like that. It's a perfectly natural mistake.

How many times do I have to do this

Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances

http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/combStmt/cs2009/outlay.pdf

Then it probably is your contention that the 2009 budget was Bush's as well

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
Is this a joke or are you really this poorly informed. The Federal Govt. doesn't fund schools and only supports the highway system through the Federal Excise taxes on gasoline. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Teachers, schools, police, fire fighters, roads are expenses paid for by state and local taxes. Federal taxes fund the Dept. of Education which is a waste of money, and the Interstate highway system which was paid for decades ago. The only thing you got right is the 750 billion dollar military not try again and this time try being honest.

A sizable portion of our school funding comes from the federal government. The federal government still spends money on roads and infrastructure. Regardless of which level of government funds what, we are far better off that countries that never bothered to fund these things, and that funding has helped to build America.

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

j-mac said:
Is that all you got Scott? You have to put words in my mouth? Show me were I said any of that?

Obviously you never said any of that.

So you admit that it is ridiculous? That's the point, glad you agree.

j-mac · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
Obviously you never said any of that.

So you admit that it is ridiculous? That's the point, glad you agree.

Ok, let me use your logic...Today's levels of spending are great, and Obama has it right eh?

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
A sizable portion of our school funding comes from the federal government. The federal government still spends money on roads and infrastructure. Regardless of which level of government funds what, we are far better off that countries that never bothered to fund these things, and that funding has helped to build America.

No, sorry that isn't true at all, it is the state and local communities that fund most of the school funding. What the Federal Govt. funds are federal mandates but have nothing to do with operating expenses or capital projects(I.e. no child left behind)

As for roads, again, only Federal highway maintenance and bridges are funded by the gasoline and motor fuel taxes so the rhetoric sounds great but is just isn't true. Where are all the excise taxes collected since the tax system was established? Are you telling me that more money has gone out for roads and bridges than collected?

Stop buying what you are told and use actual Federal Treasury data which by the way shows 78 billion dollars in funding for schools. Any idea how many schools that will help? Find out what your school district budget is? My school district alone is 400 million dollars or 40% of a billion

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
How many times do I have to do this

Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances

http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/combStmt/cs2009/outlay.pdf

Then it probably is your contention that the 2009 budget was Bush's as well

I can't explain why the numbers are different. The Heritage article cites the CBO as it's source. Most likely it's a difference between calendar year or fiscal year, or maybe one includes off budget spending and the other does not. Who knows.

From your source:

2000 Total outlays ...................... 1,788,140 (in billions)

2008 Total out............................ 2,978.4 (in billions)

So that's about $1.2 trillion dollar increase during the 8 Bush years, and $900 billion during the first seven years of the Obama administration (assuming that the 3.9 billion dollar budget proposal holds true). Looks to me that the spending competition between Bush and Obama will be clearly won by Bush without even adjusting for inflation or population growth, or anything else.

Actual economic history never supports conservative rhetoric.

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
I can't explain why the numbers are different. The Heritage article cites the CBO as it's source. Most likely it's a difference between calendar year or fiscal year, or maybe one includes off budget spending and the other does not. Who knows.

2000 Total outlays ...................... 1,788,140

2008 Total outlays................................................................................ 2,978.4

So that's about $1.2 trillion dollar increase during the 8 Bush years, and $900 billion during the first seven years of the Obama administration (assuming that the 3.9 billion dollar budget proposal holds true). Looks to me that the spending competition between Bush and Obama will be clearly won by Bush without even adjusting for inflation or population growth, or anything else.

Actual economic history never supports conservative rhetoric.

Actual history seems to be foreign to liberals who forgot 9/11 and the resulting wars. Thought that the cry was "We will never forget?"

Now that those wars are over and 9/11 has been paid for why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and more taxes penalizing the producers?

whysoserious · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
Actual history seems to be foreign to liberals who forgot 9/11 and the resulting wars. Thought that the cry was "We will never forget?"

Now that those wars are over and 9/11 has been paid for why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and more taxes penalizing the producers?

Funniest post of the year. I didn't know former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a guest on this board!

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

j-mac said:
Ok, let me use your logic...Today's levels of spending are great, and Obama has it right eh?

I have no clue if Obama has it right or not. I'm not particularly an Obama supporter, didn't vote for him either time, and don't particularly believe that he has been a very effective POTUS.

What I don't like is partisan hackery.

The actual historic evidence doesn't support the notion that he is a big spender, especially since his budget increases, from the time he took office through his proposed 3.9 billion dollar budget, have been right at the inflation rate, and less than population growth.

j-mac · Jan 21, 2015

imagep said:
I have no clue if Obama has it right or not. I'm not particularly an Obama supporter, didn't vote for him either time, and don't particularly believe that he has been a very effective POTUS.

What I don't like is partisan hackery.

The actual historic evidence doesn't support the notion that he is a big spender, especially since his budget increases, from the time he took office through his proposed 3.9 billion dollar budget, have been right at the inflation rate, and less than population growth.

Do you think this country has a lot of waste in the budget?

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
No, sorry that isn't true at all, it is the state and local communities that fund most of the school funding. What the Federal Govt. funds are federal mandates but have nothing to do with operating expenses or capital projects(I.e. no child left behind)

That may be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the federal government spends money on education. Don't pretend that it doesn't, we all know better.

As for roads, again, only Federal highway maintenance and bridges are funded by the gasoline and motor fuel taxes so the rhetoric sounds great but is just isn't true. Where are all the excise taxes collected since the tax system was established? Are you telling me that more money has gone out for roads and bridges than collected? [.quote]

I have no clue, but regardless of what type of tax funds infrastructure, federal infrastructure spending still exists.

Stop buying what you are told and use actual Federal Treasury data which by the way shows 78 billion dollars in funding for schools. Any idea how many schools that will help? Find out what your school district budget is? My school district alone is 400 million dollars or 40% of a billion

Click to expand...

What's your point? That the federal government isn't spending much on education? OK, you won and I agree!

imagep · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
Actual history seems to be foreign to liberals who forgot 9/11 and the resulting wars. Thought that the cry was "We will never forget?"

Now that those wars are over and 9/11 has been paid for why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and more taxes penalizing the producers?

You guys can come up with all the excuses you like, it doesn't negate the facts.

Declan · Jan 21, 2015

Conservative said:
Actual history seems to be foreign to liberals who forgot 9/11 and the resulting wars. Thought that the cry was "We will never forget?"

Now that those wars are over and 9/11 has been paid for why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and more taxes penalizing the producers?

Where the heck do you get that 9/11 is paid for?

Conservative · Jan 21, 2015

whysoserious said:
Funniest post of the year. I didn't know former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a guest on this board!

Look, I know that 9/11 actually didn't happen and it was drones that took down the WTC and of course all those Dead Americans really are still walking around the Bermuda Triangle but the issue is this, the U.S. Treasury paid for 9/11, paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with all those expenses in the debt that Obama inherited. there are no wars going on right now, no 9/11 and yet Obama wants to spend 3.9 trillion and liberals here support it. Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?

Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Conservative

j-mac

imagep

Villiage Idiot

imagep

Villiage Idiot

j-mac

Conservative

imagep

Villiage Idiot

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Conservative

j-mac

Conservative

imagep

Villiage Idiot

imagep

Villiage Idiot

j-mac

Conservative

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Conservative

whysoserious

imagep

Villiage Idiot

j-mac

imagep

Villiage Idiot

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Declan

Conservative