Midnight Judges Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yet?:hysterical:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm Of course I'm fixing to go replenish my cigars and fund someone else's health care....I'm doing my part to reduce the debt,you libs feel free to donate;) My good deed for the day:silly: My bad, I was working under the assumption you guys understood how the federal budget works. Budgets are worked out 1 year in advance at the executive level and three years at the agency level. The Clinton administration made the 2001 budget, the Bush administration made the 2009 budget, and regardless of what happens in the election, the Obama administration will make the 2013 budget. The 2010 budget is almost complete as we speak. See that big line in your chart under 2009? Guess who made that budget? Guess who's programs were approved to spend that money? Guess who had 8 years to bring that surplus to what it is now? I was also working under the assumption that you guys were capable of simple math, understanding a calender, and the meaning of the word "debt." The guy I quoted said Obama has already spent more than Bush (debt is money spent). Actually, the only money Obama has spent is his stimulus money, and only a fraction of that has even been spent yet. So when Republicans tell guys like you and nonniey, "Obama quadroupled the deficit" or "Obama has already spent more than Bush" they say these things because they know you guys are financially illiterate and they are taking advantage of you. They know you are ignorant as to how our Government works and how/when budgets are formulated. And they prey on you. Of course the fact that up to $190 billion a year in war debt is left off of those deficit charts for the Bush years and included in the Obama years is also noteworthy. But I don't suppose you knew that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Didn't the Dem Congress put off the 09 budget submitted by W? Didn't they also have control of ALL spending? Didn't O have control of half the stimulus package and approved the whole? So just because the spending is approved ,it is not spending? W presided over record spending, O will surpass that record quickly.(even though as he says"We are out of Money") You will all soon get your chance to help fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Haven't I been hearing since I was in high school that we had to stop passing this massive deficit down from one generation to the next? Yes, I have. For over 30 years. So can we stop the utterly stupid ****ing "who caused the debt" pissing match? It's been here for decades. We've known about it for decades. The piper is coming to collect, and now we want to point fingers? Grow up, America. No adult in this country that has been alive over the last 30 years didn't know this was coming. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Haven't I been hearing since I was in high school that we had to stop passing this massive deficit down from one generation to the next?Yes, I have. For over 30 years. So can we stop the utterly stupid ****ing "who caused the debt" pissing match? It's been here for decades. We've known about it for decades. The piper is coming to collect, and now we want to point fingers? Grow up, America. No adult in this country that has been alive over the last 30 years didn't know this was coming. ~Bang Seriously...Bang is the smartest guy on this board. You should run for president (no joke). Tayman for president!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Well, I can tell you as a daughter of a family who is considered "upper class," the taxes are ridiculous, especially for those who are business owners.So how does that work, that taxes are especially bad for business owners? We all pay the same income tax rates. The self-employed have to pay the employer half of FICA and Medicare, sure, but there are offsets for part of that. As a partial business owner myself I can tell you that business owners have the opportunity to bury many routine expenses as a income-reducing business expenses. Owning a business opens up whole vistas of tax reduction not available to the average joe. I suspect it has something to do with the industry, and I have no idea what the law field is like, but the medical field is going to **** here in California and at the federal level and private practice physicians are drowning in taxes, decreasing reimbursement rates, and increasing malpractice rates. That's the perspective I'm coming from and it's tiring to hear people, not only on this board, but throughout everyday life, think that it's fine for the government to continue increasing taxes on the "wealthy." It's the air of entitlement and "it's fine, make them pay, they're 'rich'" that just really, really irks me.California is a high-tax state, but you'd be hard pressed to get me to believe that's because Obama wants to soak the rich. First because Obama has nothing to do with CA taxes, and second because CA soaks everybody, its not like the rich pay higher taxes than anybody else.On the federal level the tax rate is more "progressive". But a guy making $20K who gets a raise to $40K sees his tax rate go from 15% to 25%. Then he gets a raise to $1M, and his tax rate goes from 25% to 35%. That's not much of a soaking - and his FICA rate drops to near zero. I feel for those in the medical field though. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think its the malpractice more than anything else that's killing them. I've got a friend who's an OB-GYN and another who's a brain surgeon, and what each of them pay in insurance is a multiple of my entire salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Good. That extra money can go to all the cancer research we need because of the tobacco industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 California is a high-tax state, but you'd be hard pressed to get me to believe that's because Obama wants to soak the rich. First because Obama has nothing to do with CA taxes, and second because CA soaks everybody, its not like the rich pay higher taxes than anybody else.I feel for those in the medical field though. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think its the malpractice more than anything else that's killing them. I've got a friend who's an OB-GYN and another who's a brain surgeon, and what each of them pay in insurance is a multiple of my entire salary. Yeah, I'm more pissing and moaning about California and the medical field in general. I wasn't meaning to convey my frustration with Obama, at least not yet...give him a little time to get more crap that he wants passed in regards to healthcare and I'll be supremely disgusted. But you're right, neuro and OB are the 2 highest malpractice rate medical specialties, it's almost cost prohibitive to even go into those specialties now. But sorry, went off on a tangent with the medical field crap. I'm just frustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yet?:hysterical:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm Of course I'm fixing to go replenish my cigars and fund someone else's health care....I'm doing my part to reduce the debt,you libs feel free to donate;) My good deed for the day:silly: This chart has made me want to throw up in recent weeks. What makes me really want to throw up is the fact that just our entitlements this coming FY will equal the amount of the ENTIRE budget in FY 1999 :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 This chart has made me want to throw up in recent weeks. What makes me really want to throw up is the fact that just our entitlements this coming FY will equal the amount of the ENTIRE budget in FY 1999 :doh: (Wondering what the chart would look like if Bush and Obama were using the same rules for calculating the deficits.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yet?:hysterical:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm From the article: The numbers measure what's needed today — set aside in a lump sum, earning interest — to pay benefits that won't be covered by future taxes. Oh, the old "Look how much money it would cost for the government, right now, to pay for all the costs of Medicare, and everything else, forever." trick. Haven't seen that one for, well, days. The article starts off with Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows. and then doesn't mention any new commitment whatsoever. Rather, what it does is calculate that because a lot of people are getting laid off, therefore tax revenues will be lower for the next several years than if there hadn't been a recession, and this will cause Social Security to run out of money sooner, and if the government were to chose to make up that future shortfall, right now, then it would cost . . . (I'm also observing that your chart didn't come from that article.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (I'm also observing that your chart didn't come from that article.) Care to google the CBO report and bash their methodology?...feel free:silly: You know the Dem controlled Congressional one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Care to google the CBO report and bash their methodology?...feel free:silly:You know the Dem controlled Congressional one? Care to bash Bush for claiming in his budget figures that two wars don't exist? Or stick to apples and oranges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Care to bash Bush for claiming in his budget figures that two wars don't exist? Or stick to apples and oranges? It has no bearing on this subject, but I'm sure the CBO report included war spending. Nice deflection though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Back to the thread....I like cigars and this is a pain in the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (Wondering what the chart would look like if Bush and Obama were using the same rules for calculating the deficits.) You see Larry, I am one of those people who doesn't care about how the "deficit" is calculated. I'll even underline this for you The national DEBT, goes up either way. Its like not having the personal debt you owe your aunt May on your credit report. It may not be there in your official "deficit" but at the end of the year your DEBT sure as hell went up So this whole "accounting tricks of the Bush admin" talking point is a bunch of nonsense in my opinion, because either way that nasty thing called the DEBT went up by about 6 trillion during the Bush years, and is projected to go up 9 trillion over the next decade. Accounting tricks or no accounting tricks. Generally when I look at the deficit/debt issues, I just look at this http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Accounting tricks and what one President "shows" compared to the other has zero impact on how fast that clock moves Wonders if people will actually understand this intellectually honest way to look at our national debt.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Back to the thread....I like cigars and this is a pain in the neck. You sir should be glad of the opportunity to pay more to help the less fortunate...after all it is a luxury. Shut up and bend over Obamaman can fix it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 WAR IS PEACE ~ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY ~ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 That just isn't realistic. Getting rid of the dept of education isnt realistic why? Private schools seem to thrive pretty good without being under their control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Sorry, shill, I don't agree. It's an easy argument, of course, to say "hey, tax em, if they want their twinkies." But what are you really saying is basically saying we are trying to extort money for being unhealthy. And I do not agree that the government should be enforcing a healthy lifestyle. Promoting, yes. I guess what it boils down to is I do not agree with new taxes to pay for the government's already bloated budget and deficit, and you do. I do not care how they are presented. Why should Americans have to pay more for anything, perhaps it's the government's turn to pay for it's unhealthy spending habit. Enforcing a heaslthy lifestyle would be a mandatory once a day exercise program adding a tax on that stuff is not enforcing anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Enforcing a heaslthy lifestyle would be a mandatory once a day exercise program adding a tax on that stuff is not enforcing anything Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.