Why am I smirking?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

[GoldenRivet]

keep smikrin TVM


i wouldnt expect you to even be able to figure out when the taxes for the gazillions of dollars this administration has spent will go into effect.


but when they do... your smirk will rapidly fade.


enjoy it while it lasts.

also... did you miss the article about how there are so many illegal immigrants that the percentage of individuals paying income tax is minuscule?

smirking about that is like having a car with a wobbly tire.

the engine explodes and the car will no longer run.

and your happy because the tire isnt wobbly anymore as a result. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Funny, my property tax went up considerably. The sales tax went up considerably. But that is not the problem as the article points out...it is the spending...eventually someone wants to get paid...your taxes will take care of that when they are raised. So, smile for now as it will not last long.

[Turbografx]

DECEPTICON LIES! Beware the Decepticons!

You will have to pay for bail-out **** sometime, just not this year.

[GoldenRivet]

Additionally... where do you think the trillions are going to come from?


there are two possible Democrat answers

1. Higher taxes

2. The printing press


there are a considerable number of problems with BOTH of those "solutions" your fumbling monkey hero has so brilliantly come up with

[Snestorm]

How much are the taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, and telephone service?

[Turbografx]

your fumbling monkey hero has so brilliantly come up with

Watch it with the pseudo-racism (hell, outright racism).

Anyway, as a political outsider (I didn't vote dem or rep, I didn't like either of the candidates), I still think Obama has a way to go before he has reached G.W. Bush levels of government spending and growth.

Also, the problems he inherited contribute towards his criticism.

[GoldenRivet]

Watch it with the pseudo-racism (hell, outright racism).

Anyway, as a political outsider (I didn't vote dem or rep, I didn't like either of the candidates), I still think Obama has a way to go before he has reached G.W. Bush levels of government spending and growth.

Also, the problems he inherited contribute towards his criticism.

ill just point you to this HIGHLY entertaining thread

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=169112



and yeah.... Trillion dollars in the first year... thats similar to billion only with a T and a few extra zeroes.

personally i dont think BO has a long way before he outspends Bush + every other president combined

[AVGWarhawk]

How much are the taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, and telephone service?


And alcohol?????

[SteamWake]

Heh you think taxation is bad now... just wait as the others have pointed out you aint seen nothing yet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/97089-democrats-poised-to-move-measures-with-high-price-tags

Oh and wait till they pass the cap & trade legislation.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, the world's biggest industrialised economy will finally give a rat's ass about climate change.

[GoldenRivet]

Yeah, the world's biggest industrialised economy will finally give a rat's ass about climate change.

I shouldnt expect China would care either bro:yeah:

[Turbografx]

ill just point you to this HIGHLY entertaining thread

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=169112



and yeah.... Trillion dollars in the first year... thats similar to billion only with a T and a few extra zeroes.

personally i dont think BO has a long way before he outspends Bush + every other president combined


Rather than reverting to jokes and conjecture, lets looks at some figures.

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush?id=26426 (http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush?id=26426)

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

I remember the total expenditure of the last administration was $11.5 trillion.

So far Obama has spent/earmarked approximately $2.6 trillion. If he serves two terms, and spends the same amount each year (which wouldn't make sense, seeing as almost 1 trillion was one time stimulus money), he would spend 10.4 trillion.

[GoldenRivet]

Turbo


now you see the point. Im elated.

government

spending

is

out

of

control

and

unsustainable

it has been... FOR DECADES

The TEA party is not an anti-Obama thing so much as it is an anti outrageous government spending venture.

if it were up to me, Bush, Pelosi, Reed, Obama and all the others would be blasted off to outer space

[Sailor Steve]

Why am I smirking?
I don't know, but I can guess: Because you are by nature arrogant and smug, and it's more important to you to say "I'm right and you're stupid" and kick people who disagree with you than to have a reasoned, honest discussion?

You may be well-read, and even intelligent, but you strike me as extremely shallow and in need of justification just to feel complete.

[August]

So far Obama has spent/earmarked approximately $2.6 trillion. If he serves two terms, and spends the same amount each year (which wouldn't make sense, seeing as almost 1 trillion was one time stimulus money), he would spend 10.4 trillion.

Except that it is not the President who spends the money, but rather the US Congress which sort of blows your whole theory.

[Platapus]

Except that it is not the President who spends the money, but rather the US Congress which sort of blows your whole theory.


Don't go bringing in facts in to the discussion. They are on a roll. :nope:

[August]

Don't go bringing in facts in to the discussion. They are on a roll. :nope:

It can be therapeutic.

[Aramike]

It's kinda both, isn't it? Congress' budget is ultimately approved by the President.

It's akin to saying that the CEO isn't responsible for a company's spending but rather the budget team which came up with the numbers was. Ultimately the buck stops somewhere.

But in any case, you're absolutely right, August - this Congress is a disaster.

[Aramike]

I don't know, but I can guess: Because you are by nature arrogant and smug, and it's more important to you to say "I'm right and you're stupid" and kick people who disagree with you than to have a reasoned, honest discussion?

You may be well-read, and even intelligent, but you strike me as extremely shallow and in need of justification just to feel complete.Damn, I was about to quote the same thing and just say "No idea". Hah! :salute:

[August]

It's akin to saying that the CEO isn't responsible for a company's spending but rather the budget team which came up with the numbers was. Ultimately the buck stops somewhere.

I don't know if that's really an accurate analogy Mike. A budget team are just employees that can be hired and fired by the CEO. I'd think a closer match would be a board of directors with direct budgetary control.

[Weiss Pinguin]

I don't know if that's really an accurate analogy Mike. A budget team are just employees that can be hired and fired by the CEO. I'd think a closer match would be a board of directors with direct budgetary control.
There you go again, always bringing in the facts :shifty:

[Aramike]

I don't know if that's really an accurate analogy Mike. A budget team are just employees that can be hired and fired by the CEO. I'd think a closer match would be a board of directors with direct budgetary control.You're precisely right. I'm just trying to give our adversary in this debate a head-start before I explain to him the way that Obama's future spending will add to his current annual spending (an obvious hole in his argument to anyone with a 5th grade education), and how Obama's annual spending commitments are nowhere near the figures he presents.

Gee, Wally ... let's think for a moment: ObamaCare costs X dollars. Said dollars don't take effect until 2012. Let's pretend that said dollars aren't actually spent (although the Congressional bill says they will HAVE to be), and calculate our argument on that basis.

Oh yeah, and let's use a 5 paragraph article compartmentalizng the facts as justification for our reasoning... :har:

What a joke.

If you're gonna argue something here, at least understand what you're getting into.

[Platapus]

It's kinda both, isn't it? Congress' budget is ultimately approved by the President.



Nope, the other way around.

The President submits his budget for the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch also submits their budget.

Congress is the authority to approve the budget. The President frequently asks for budgets that are disapproved.

Congress has its own budget and guess who is the authority to approve congressional budgets?

Congress - hence the problem

But in no way, would the President be allowed to approve or disapprove of the legislative branch's budget.

[AVGWarhawk]

What about line item veto?

[Platapus]

What about line item veto?

The President does not have it.

We tried that with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-13)

It was challenged in several courts and was ultimately judged to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Clinton v City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

[SteamWake]

Yes lets talk facts.

The fact is their accounting is a tad off supprise supprise...

The Congressional Budget Office has doubled the estimated increases of some costs resulting from the sweeping health care reform legislation passed this year.

Hell the original estimates were unsustainable.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/11/cbo-doubles-some-health-care-spending-estimates/

Woops a little more miscalculation


The United States posted an $82.69 billion deficit in April, nearly four times the $20.91 billion shortfall registered in April 2009 and the largest on record for that month, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B53W20100512

[Aramike]

Nope, the other way around.

The President submits his budget for the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch also submits their budget.

Congress is the authority to approve the budget. The President frequently asks for budgets that are disapproved.

Congress has its own budget and guess who is the authority to approve congressional budgets?

Congress - hence the problem

But in no way, would the President be allowed to approve or disapprove of the legislative branch's budget. I did say that wrong, but in context, the buck DOES stop at the President.

Congress, on its own, has the ability to create its own budget. However, it does NOT have the ability to authorize any new spending. That is done through the appropriations process, which DOES require the president's approval, and then goes into the budget.

Obama's appropriations by themselves are not necessarily spectacular ... but when combined with the $700 billion bailout, and the nearly $800 billion stimulus package (which contained majority non-specific appropriations) and now a healthcare overhaul, there is no way around it: this president is spending recklessly.