• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

I didn't support TARP but I do understand that most of it was paid back with interest. Where did the payback go? In a 14.5 trillion dollar economy 700 billion isn't a lot and that is the way one has to look at it. Again, I didn't support the bailout but understand why it happened but as stated question where the repayment money went?

so, you believe that only $700 Billion of taxpayer money was put at risk
there is your fundamental problem
and that ignorance of the bailout is shared by most Americans; more so by those whose news is provided by the faux network
 
so, you believe that only $700 Billion of taxpayer money was put at risk
there is your fundamental problem
and that ignorance of the bailout is shared by most Americans; more so by those whose news is provided by the faux network

Agreed. Try at least $5 trillion.

At least.....
 
=justabubba;1059103705]it is also going to move jobs to china to avoid a 30% excise tax
not unlike the japanese and german automakers who brought plants to the USA a generation back

but the point is, your reasoning makes no financial sense

That is your opinion, what doesn't make sense? businesses not going to hire because of uncertainty? Do you have any idea how much it costs to hire and train and employee? What is obamacare going to cost? Once you hire an employee, you keep them or pay the costs associated with releasing them. From what I get from you, you don't have a clue how much that is.

you insist that the lack of definition of tax rates is holding investors back from spending
that is absolutely nonsense

What is hurting business right now is the lack of money that people have and the potential costs of hiring people. What doesn't make any sense is someone who has never made a payroll telling someone who has that their argument doesn't make any sense. Without customers there aren't any profits and right now there are 16 million unemployed Americans and no incentive to hire.

if they fail to invest then they realize No profit to be taxed
how is No profit better than a profit that is more heavily taxed than it was

Invest in what? If you don't have customers you don't have profits and yes businesses have gone out of business and that is why the unemployment rate is actually closer to 20%. People that owned business that went out of business aren't counted, neither are contract employees that lost their jobs.


your conclusion should now be that your assumption is wrong and there is something else causing investors to hold on to their money instead of investing it ... uncertainty about tax rates is not the cause of that failure to invest


Thank you for telling me that I am wrong, I will take that under advisement, NOT
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Try at least $5 trillion.

At least.....

Don't worry, Obama will fix it just like he did the last two years with a Democrat Congress. Where did the TARP repayment funds go?

5 trillion dollars is what the Democrats have added to the debt since 2007.
 
so, you believe that only $700 Billion of taxpayer money was put at risk
there is your fundamental problem
and that ignorance of the bailout is shared by most Americans; more so by those whose news is provided by the faux network

If you want to continue this discussion then stop with the condescending comments. I didn't support the bailouts and I asked you where the repayment with interest went. Sounds like a good question to me. Doesn't appear that you have a clue.
 
If you want to continue this discussion then stop with the condescending comments. I didn't support the bailouts and I asked you where the repayment with interest went. Sounds like a good question to me. Doesn't appear that you have a clue.
If you want such comments to stop, try rewording your own posts.....
 
Is that where the repayment went? Link please

I never state that is where repayment went. Only that this is first place TARP repayments will flow into.
 
I never state that is where repayment went. Only that this is first place TARP repayments will flow into.

Ok, I have no problem with that, the point is where has the money gone? Obama deficits are almost 3 trillion in 2 years. Some of that deficit was TARP and much of TARP has been repaid. What did Obama do with the money?
 
Ok, I have no problem with that, the point is where has the money gone? Obama deficits are almost 3 trillion in 2 years. Some of that deficit was TARP and much of TARP has been repaid. What did Obama do with the money?

You seem to be sitting on some sensitive information. By all means, do enlighten us all.
 
Ok, I have no problem with that, the point is where has the money gone? Obama deficits are almost 3 trillion in 2 years. Some of that deficit was TARP and much of TARP has been repaid. What did Obama do with the money?

Stealfromus package, mosque reconstruction, billions sent to the Palestinian Authority, Cash for Clunkers, the Omnibus bills, $200 billion trips to India, Michelle's vacations to Spain; and that's just for starters.

There's no telling how much it cost to get Obamacare passed. Printing costs, alone, probably ran into the millions.
 
Stealfromus package, mosque reconstruction, billions sent to the Palestinian Authority, Cash for Clunkers, the Omnibus bills, $200 billion trips to India, Michelle's vacations to Spain; and that's just for starters.

There's no telling how much it cost to get Obamacare passed. Printing costs, alone, probably ran into the millions.

Well what do you expect from a Community Organizer? Results matter in the "Big Leagues" not so with a Community Organizer.
 
They took the risk, risk that you wouldn't take so why shouldn't they keep what they earned? How does that hurt you? Looks to me like you want to pick and choose what someone else makes, why? What gives you that right?
What risk are they taking, they use computers to do their trading?

How Speed Traders Are Changing Wall Street - 60 Minutes - CBS News

(CBS) It may surprise you to learn that most of the stock trades in the U.S. are no longer being made by human beings, but by robot computers capable of buying and selling thousands of different securities in the time it takes you to blink an eye.

These supercomputers - which actually decide which stocks to buy and sell - are operating on highly secret instructions programmed into them by math wizards who may or may not know anything about the value of the companies that are being traded.
 
Stealfromus package, mosque reconstruction, billions sent to the Palestinian Authority, Cash for Clunkers, the Omnibus bills, $200 billion trips to India, Michelle's vacations to Spain; and that's just for starters.

There's no telling how much it cost to get Obamacare passed. Printing costs, alone, probably ran into the millions.

Yeah **** eh, ain't these people ever heard of an i-Pad?
 
Well what do you expect from a Community Organizer? Results matter in the "Big Leagues" not so with a Community Organizer.

Results matter with a community organizer; just different kinds of results. To a community organizer, entitlements = profit.
 
No, military power is sacred, not spending. We don't want to cut the military (as liberals do), but we are all for controlling costs and looking for economic efficiencies as long as the mission remains the same.

There's a HUGE difference between spending on useless politically generated entitlements and the cost of having and continually developing the best military in the world.
if it's the "best in the world" how come we have 16 million illegals that just walked across?
 
Grow the economy and the numbers increase. BEA.gov will give you the breakdown of revenue and expenses as they were spent, so does the U.S. Treasury site. The numbers I gave you came from bea.gov because captures history in a form that even you can understand. Go to bea.gov, go to Gross Domestic Product, click on most frequently requested tables and go to revenue and expense. You will learn a lot there.

Well, thanks for proving my point. Your tax receipt numbers were way off. From your site, which I also use a lot, that's why I was questioning your receipts by year by the way. Guess you just can't learn a lot.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Federal Tax Receipts by year:
2000 - $2.085 Billion
2001 - $2.048 Billion
2002 - $1.885 Billion
2003 - $1.907 Billion
2004 - $2.039 Billion
2005 - $2.315 Billion
2006 - $2.552 Billion
2007 - $2.681 Billion
2008 - $2.531 Billion
2009 - $2.227 Billion

These numbers are nowhere near where you had posted previously. And less than is expected for 2011 by the way ($2.589 Billion).

There is no historical evidence that reduced taxes increases net revenues from tax receipts. Even a conservative foundation admits this:

The Tax Foundation - Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts

Myth on the Right: The Bush tax cuts caused revenues to go up.
Republican spokespeople and other tax-cut enthusiasts have asserted that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 actually increased revenue. They often point to rising revenues from 2004 through 2007 following the tax cuts in May 2003. Unfortunately, as any Economics 101 student will tell you, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yes, revenue did rise, but we have to answer the question: Would it have risen anyway?

We can never be absolutely sure how the economy would have reacted if the tax cut legislation had failed for some reason in 2001 and 2003, but the consensus among experts is that the economy would have grown in the mid-2000s with or without the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts had no feedback effect at all—people reported more taxable income than they would have—but those beneficial effects were not so great that the tax cuts could have "paid for themselves."

The most damaging result of this myth is that Republican lawmakers feel less pressure to propose spending cuts. Why bother when cutting a tax rate will raise more revenue?

Not really, VA is about 100 billion a year, Defense should be about 750 billion aa year, Justice should be about 50 billion a year. The total expenses of what the Constitution requires is about 1.8 billion dollars.

We also have to pay interest on our current debt, so you need to add another $250 Billion or so.

So, you think Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid should not be government programs? If so, fine, but the states will have to fund them then so federal taxes will go down but state taxes will go up, a lot if they are to be funded properly.

Please name for me one projection or prediction that Obama Wh has made that has beena accurate. I will take the Treasury data any day, that is the bank account of the nation

That's fine, but as I proved above you are using the wrong numbers.

We have a law on the books called unfunded mandates. The states get help from the Federal Govt. on mandated programs by the Federal Govt. Many states are going to opt out of Medicaid if the Federal Govt. keeps sending down mandates without the money to fund them long term.

What are you trying to point out here? I've said above that Medicaid outlays by the federal government are not being properly funded. So, I guess we agree.

Right, but it is funded by your withholding taxes as a line item on your paystub. That money goes to the state not the Federal govt.

Again, you are reiterating my points from previous posts. The Federal government does pay into Medicaid programs, but does not have the related revenue from tax receipts to fund those payments.
 
if it's the "best in the world" how come we have 16 million illegals that just walked across?

The military is under the control of the CIC and he hasn't sent them to the border. Don't blame the military for the failure of their CIC
 
Well, thanks for proving my point. Your tax receipt numbers were way off. From your site, which I also use a lot, that's why I was questioning your receipts by year by the way. Guess you just can't learn a lot.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Federal Tax Receipts by year:
2000 - $2.085 Billion
2001 - $2.048 Billion
2002 - $1.885 Billion
2003 - $1.907 Billion
2004 - $2.039 Billion
2005 - $2.315 Billion
2006 - $2.552 Billion
2007 - $2.681 Billion
2008 - $2.531 Billion
2009 - $2.227 Billion

These numbers are nowhere near where you had posted previously. And less than is expected for 2011 by the way ($2.589 Billion).

There is no historical evidence that reduced taxes increases net revenues from tax receipts. Even a conservative foundation admits this:

The Tax Foundation - Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts





We also have to pay interest on our current debt, so you need to add another $250 Billion or so.

So, you think Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid should not be government programs? If so, fine, but the states will have to fund them then so federal taxes will go down but state taxes will go up, a lot if they are to be funded properly.



That's fine, but as I proved above you are using the wrong numbers.



What are you trying to point out here? I've said above that Medicaid outlays by the federal government are not being properly funded. So, I guess we agree.



Again, you are reiterating my points from previous posts. The Federal government does pay into Medicaid programs, but does not have the related revenue from tax receipts to fund those payments.

Right, the bank account of the United States Govt. is wrong, we always should believe what the WH posts. Do you realize how foolish your post is?
 
Right, the bank account of the United States Govt. is wrong, we always should believe what the WH posts. Do you realize how foolish your post is?

So, I've disproved your numbers with the site (BEA) that you provided and I look foolish? Did you even look at the BEA link I provided? Seriously?
 
Back
Top Bottom