Six months to go until largest tax hikes in history

• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;409716 wrote:We've entered into a new realm of fiscal incompetence and irresponsibility.

  In Obamanese that translates to "hope and change".
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge;409620 wrote:

  Writerbuckeye;409600 wrote:NOT THE POINT.
  
  
  
  That is a strawman argument that is patently false. The president submits HIS BUDGET..and the Congress alters it plus or minus 5% points since forever. Tht's what happens and that is how it's done. PERIOD. Moreover, any president can whack any supefluous spending with the stroke of his pen. Cite for me one stinking lousy example, whereby in our lifetime, a Congress has overridden a damn veto because a president wanted to control spending. It doesn't happen, PERIOD.
  
  Even Reagan publicly stated POST OFFICE that his biggest regret in his presidency, was HIS OWN HYPERSPENDING.
  
  
  
  Denial is a river in the Middle East.

  
  Congress controls the purse strings and is responsible for budgets. All your ranting hasn't changed that fact.
  
  So forever and ever, Congress has found ways to work with the president in formulating a final budget? And this somehow proves the president is in charge of the process? Too funny.
  
  "Moreover, any president can whack any supefluous spending with the stroke of his pen."
  
  Um no. No he can't -- not unless he vetoes the ENTIRE BILL. There is no line item veto accorded to the president. If he did have this power, then I'd say the president had more control of the budget overall. Since he has to accept the entire package (good and bad) it's still in Congress' power to determine what they want to include or not include (and yes, I know there will be negotiating), but the final version ends up coming from a joint committee of Congress -- not from the president.
  
  How often a Congress has overridden a veto has NOTHING to do with this discussion. It's about who has, under the Constitution, the AUTHORITY to put together the budget for the United States.
  
  That power lies with Congress.

• Footwedge

  IMO...the reason why conservatives can't face the reality of what has happened when their guys controlled the purse strings......
  
  Individuals who run their lives conservatively save their money and never live beyond their means. Unless there is an emergency, conservatives pay off their credit card balances in full ever month. Conservatives love the security of having some money in savings/stocks/bonds/annuities. Conservatives will not line their homes with high end furniture all on credit....they will pay as they go. Conservatives are far less likely to enter into bankruptcy.
  
  Conservative people worry more about the future...whereby the liberal counterparts live for today...at any cost. I could go on and on...but I think I've made my point.
  
  This is why....back in 1992....a very solid base of paleoconservatives bonded together and block voted for Ross Perot at a 20% clip. Ross's winning pitch (the best showing by third party entrant ever), was his pie charts on the debt hammering away at the financial incompetence of both Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan.
  
  It's very painful for old schooled conservatives to admit that their own presidents were more reckless with spending than the democratic counterparts.
  
  As to the "Congress controls spending crowd"...the horse is dead...I'm not going to beat it anymore. I've listed countless links proving my case. Moreover, the GOP controlled the executive branch and both the House and Senate between 2002 and 2006. Look up those numbers. The spending was mind boggling and numbing.
  
  Had spending shown any appreciable decrease between 2002 and 2006...then maybe...just maybe...people would take a listen. But we all know what happened.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;410008 wrote:It's very painful for old schooled conservatives to admit that their own presidents were more reckless with spending than the democratic counterparts.

  I was with you up until this largely nonsensical statement.
  
  I'm not denying that Republican presidents overspend because they obviously do. But to make a claim that they historically spend more than their Democrat counterparts is laughable....especially when you consider that Congress controls the purse strings (and it does) and Democrats have controlled Congress for a vast majority of the past century.
  
  FDR's New Deal, LBJ's "Guns & Butter" policies, and now Obama's Porkulus Spending are - IMHO -pound for pound more fiscally insane than the economic policies of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bush's combined.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  LOL at bringing up one six year period when I've said all along that Democrats have controlled Congress for nearly two thirds of the time its been in existence.
  
  Oh and by the way: did you know the ONLY time we've actually balanced the budget and had a surplus was done with a Republican Congress? That was when Mr. Clinton was president.
  
  So, it can be done. It just takes a little political will.
  
  Oh and for the record: NOBODY has been more reckless when it comes to deficit spending than the guy now in office and his Democrat cronies in Congress.
• Con_Alma

  Footwedge;410008 wrote:IMO...the reason why conservatives can't face the reality of what has happened when their guys controlled the purse strings......
  

  Not everyone views this from a partisan perspective. Some are ticked with each administration that proposes even higher and higher deficit spending.
  
  Simply suggesting that a past administration has spent significantly does not justify the acceptance of even greater deficit spending.
• BCBulldog

  

  Con_Alma;410027 wrote:Not everyone views this from a partisan perspective. Some are ticked with each administration that proposes even higher and higher deficit spending.
  
  Simply suggesting that a past administration has spent significantly does not justify the acceptance of even greater deficit spending.

  Precisely. We are at a breaking point. We either get spending under control or suffer the effects of a lost decade or even a full blown depression. I don't care whose fault it was or who historically does better or worse. I want to know what those who are in power or want to be in the next term are going to do about it. Right now, it is very clear that Obama wants to keep going with the spending and taxing. That is unacceptable to me and my votes will reflect it in both the midterm and presidential elections.
• believer

  

  BCBulldog;410049 wrote:...it is very clear that Obama wants to keep going with the spending and taxing.

  When taxes are increased in 6 months (more precisely tax cuts terminated) the insane spending we've been witnessing of late will seem like fiscal conservatism. You can be sure the spending will increase not decrease.
• Footwedge

  believer;410017 wrote:I was with you up until this largely nonsensical statement.
  
  I'm not denying that Republican presidents overspend because they obviously do. But to make a claim that they historically spend more than their Democrat counterparts is laughable....especially when you consider that Congress controls the purse strings (and it does) and Democrats have controlled Congress for a vast majority of the past century.
  
  FDR's New Deal, LBJ's "Guns & Butter" policies, and now Obama's Porkulus Spending are - IMHO -pound for pound more fiscally insane than the economic policies of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bush's combined.

  I'm sorry Believer...but the scoreboard reads what the scoreboard reads. I've shown you the scoreboard on who spent what on multiple links. If you have a problem with my stated facts, then take it up with those that post the spending numbers. I'm the messenger...don't shoot me.
• Footwedge

  Con_Alma;410027 wrote:Not everyone views this from a partisan perspective. Some are ticked with each administration that proposes even higher and higher deficit spending.
  
  Simply suggesting that a past administration has spent significantly does not justify the acceptance of even greater deficit spending.

  I agree. I don't like deficit spending either. As I noted, I voted for Ross Perot. But the foolish nonsense from certain posters that say that Obama this and Obama that is plain old annoying. And where is jmog on his absolute ludicrous claim stating that Obama has spent more in 1.5 years than Bush did in 8 years? Now how stupid is that? For one thing," Obama's budget" has only been in effect for 9 months so far to date. Nine months. That's it.
  
  I repeat....yet again. Bush's last budget was for 3.25 trillion for his last fiscal year. Obama's initial budget was for 3.6 trillion...an increase of 10%. Now how about somebody......anybody..out there in cyberspace...please explain to me again how Obama has spent more in 1.5 years than what Bush spent in his 8 year tenure?
  
  There is propaganda...and then there are piles of bullshit twenty miles high.
  
  If conservative thinkers want to lay their claim that deficit spending is out of control....then people will take them a lot more seriously if they don't misstate their figures by trillions of dollars.
• Footwedge

  BCBulldog;410049 wrote:. Right now, it is very clear that Obama wants to keep going with the spending and taxing. .

  You must make over 250 grand a year. The rest of us payed less taxes in 2009...not more. In fact...many Americans that bought new furnaces, new air conditioners, or had insulation added to their home, had their tax bills reduced another $1500. That's not a deduction of $1500, but an off the top tax credit...as in real cash. That "energy savings" tax refund was initiated by Obama in 2009 and expires at the end of this year. Too bad Bush didn't think of it.
  
  Moreover....these reductions in tax revenues have added tremendously to the national debt...and obviously, did nothing to stimulate the economy. So much for Obama's plan of using "supply side Reaganomics" to help jump start the economy. It did not work...at all.
• Con_Alma

  Footwedge;410135 wrote: I repeat....yet again. Bush's last budget was for 3.25 trillion for his last fiscal year. Obama's initial budget was for 3.6 trillion...an increase of 10%. Now how about somebody......anybody..out there in cyberspace...please explain to me again how Obama has spent more in 1.5 years than what Bush spent in his 8 year tenure?

  For clarification purposes I have never posted such.
  
  I will again repeat, however, our current President has authorized more total expenditures and more expenditures above the federal government's receipts over the same respective period than any other President, be they Republican or Democrat.
• Con_Alma

  Footwedge;410142 wrote:You must make over 250 grand a year. The rest of us payed less taxes in 2009...not more. In fact...many Americans that bought new furnaces, new air conditioners, or had insulation added to their home, had their tax bills reduced another $1500. That's not a deduction of $15000, but an off the top tax credit...as in real cash. That "energy savings" tax refund was initiated by Obama in 2009 and expires at the end of this year. Too bad Bush didn't think of it.
  
  Moreover....these reductions in tax revenues have added tremendously to the national debt...and obviously, did nothing to stimulate the economy. So much for Obama's plan of using "supply side Reaganomics" to help jump start the economy. It did not work...at all.

  Some of us are impacted by the AMT which needs to be adjusted to be in line with past impacts based on inflationary numbers.
• Footwedge

  Con_Alma;410219 wrote:For clarification purposes I have never posted such.
  
  I will again repeat, however, our current President has authorized more total expenditures and more expenditures above the federal government's receipts over the same respective period than any other President, be they Republican or Democrat.

  Now that statement is accurate....a far cry from all the other garbage posted. Although the tax receipts are not fully calculated yet for Obama's first year. But let me add the following.
  
  Bush set the exact same record in his 2009 budget. And the year before that, Bush set the all time record as well...And the year before that.....etc. But back then, people like Rush Limbaugh publicly stated that the "national debt, is no big deal".
  
  Since forever...when unemployment is high...then combinations are always implemented.
  
  1. Keynesian economic policies.
  2. The interest rates are dropped until there is stimulation
  3. The money supply is increased.
  4. Tax rates are reduced.
  
  It's been done for 60 years now. But somehow...Obama is a socialist? then Reagan was a socialist too.
• Con_Alma

  I doubt he's a Socialist although he does have some socialist tendencies.
  
  What he is, is the largest overspender this country has seen thus far in the executive branch. He has authorized more total expenditures and more expenditures above the federal government's receipts over the same respective period than any other President, be they Republican or Democrat.
• 4cards

  

  ...
• believer

  

  LOL Hope & change
• BoatShoes

  One thing I'd like to add; It doesn't seem fair to give Reagan credit for arms racing the U.S.S.R. into submission but then give the democratic Congress the charge of being the culprit of massive deficit spending; and things of that nature. Yes, Democrats spend like crazy...Keynes giving them the gift of deficit spending was like prescribing crack to a crack addict....but to me...at least I know BHO is doing what we all thought he'd do...spend like a socialist. Conservatives do the same thing (perhaps to a lesser degree) but then talk about fiscal conservativism in the next breath....I dunno.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;410812 wrote:One thing I'd like to add; It doesn't seem fair to give Reagan credit for arms racing the U.S.S.R. into submission but then give the democratic Congress the charge of being the culprit of massive deficit spending...

  I'll take spending the Soviets into submission over firing ICBM's loaded with 20 megaton nukes over the Arctic Ocean any day...but that's just me.
• Footwedge

  believer;411068 wrote:I'll take spending the Soviets into submission over firing ICBM's loaded with 20 megaton nukes over the Arctic Ocean any day...but that's just me.

  
  You really think Reagan's spending stopped that from happening? LOL Russia went broke because they tried to win a land war in Afghanistan encompassing 9 years. Sound familiar? Just like Michael Steele said yesterday..."nobody's won a land war in Afghanistan for over a thousand years".
• believer

  

  Footwedge;411128 wrote:You really think Reagan's spending stopped that from happening? LOL Russia went broke because they tried to win a land war in Afghanistan encompassing 9 years. Sound familiar? Just like Michael Steele said yesterday..."nobody's won a land war in Afghanistan for over a thousand years".

  
  C'mom Footie...my post was laced with sarcasm but if it makes you feel better.
• Thread Bomber

  

  ^^ Funny how you admit to experimenting with the gay and rape thing..........
• derek bomar

  

  News flash: Both parties suck. Quaker, you need to take off the shades man and put down the kool-aid. The budget can't be solved just by cutting spending alone, at least not short-term. We pay so much interest on the debt that unless we cut spending and raise revenue and pay down the debt with the additional $, we're never gonna solve the problem. Also, never-ending wars with no purpose need to end, and we need to leave countries who can defend themselves (i.e. Japan, Germany, etc...). We don't need to be everywhere.
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge;410142 wrote: Moreover....these reductions in tax revenues have added tremendously to the national debt...and obviously, did nothing to stimulate the economy. So much for Obama's plan of using "supply side Reaganomics" to help jump start the economy. It did not work...at all.

  A - Complete BS .... you continue to confuse tax rates with tax revenues. It is a proven fact that lower marginal rates always stimulate the economy and the result is actually more tax revenues in aggregate.
  
  B - More BS ..... Obama's plan is the furthest thing from supply economics. It is the exact opposite --- Keynesian policy that is always a failure. He is deficit spending like never before in history but has nothing to show for it. The reason is because all of his policies are anti-investment, anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-risk taking. People can see down the road where we are headed under these morons and it is damn scary ------ there is nothing coming out of Washington that is remotely pro-growth and it is only through growth that we have any chance at all of saving this ship. So until we get back to pro-growth capitalistic policies, and abandon the marxist policies, we will continue to sink deeper in debt, but that appears to be at least two and half years out when we get rid of this complete loser.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;412507 wrote:The budget can't be solved just by cutting spending alone, at least not short-term. We pay so much interest on the debt that unless we cut spending and raise revenue and pay down the debt with the additional $, we're never gonna solve the problem. .

  I agree but the problem is the twits running our government (largely liberal tax & spend Dems by the way) will not include "cut spending" in their economic formula.
  
  So when the tax cuts expire, rather than applying the additional revenues to the national debt, they will not be able to resist the urge to spend it. A very dangerous probability.
  
  Finally by allowing these tax cuts to expire it will harm middle/working class Americans and small business...the entrepreneurial folks who create most new private sector jobs and the very backbone of our economy. Meanwhile Big Business (except Government Motors and Chrysler of course...gotta drop $$$$$ into the pockets of Big Labor ya know) will simply reduce hiring and pass on the increased taxes to the consumer (you and me) in the form of price hikes to offset the lost revenue to their bottom-lines.
  
  So the Feds will have a field day with increased spending to the delight of Big Labor, Big Business will simply yawn, and the economy will continue to tank sending more of us to the unemployment office.
  

  QuakerOats;412515 wrote:A - Complete BS .... you continue to confuse tax rates with tax revenues. It is a proven fact that lower marginal rates always stimulate the economy and the result is actually more tax revenues in aggregate.

  
  True. Even liberal darling JFK understood this and cut taxes.
  

  QuakerOats;412515 wrote:B - More BS ..... Obama's plan is the furthest thing from supply economics. It is the exact opposite --- Keynesian policy that is always a failure. He is deficit spending like never before in history but has nothing to show for it. The reason is because all of his policies are anti-investment, anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-risk taking. People can see down the road where we are headed under these morons and it is damn scary ------ there is nothing coming out of Washington that is remotely pro-growth and it is only through growth that we have any chance at all of saving this ship. So until we get back to pro-growth capitalistic policies, and abandon the marxist policies, we will continue to sink deeper in debt, but that appears to be at least two and half years out when we get rid of this complete loser.

  True, very true.