Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,982
    vCash
    1500

    Obama proposes more spending.

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...KgmF9psBH+HuA&
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,699
    vCash
    1500
    Wow. He's trying to implement exactly what he ran on? Shocking!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,982
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Norwegian View Post
    Wow. He's trying to implement exactly what he ran on? Shocking!!
    We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,317
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.
    First, I thought you wanted to be taken seriously (Libs? really?)

    Second, you are missing the point. In his first term, he would try to come out with a proposal that he thought would be acceptable. He would then be taken to the right from there. That is not how you negotiate.

    He took an opening negotiating position. That's all.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Hold on while I contain my shock and surprise...okay.

    Do we know how the spending is proposed to be allocated?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    360
    vCash
    1500
    This was his campaign, just as rightists campaign to increase debt by giving tax breaks to the wealthy who fund their campaigns and superPACs. It's just to bad their aren't enough rich voters to impact the fiscal cliff negotiations.

    Obama has no reason to negotiate on this. He should put an extension of the bush tax cuts for everyone under $250k and wait for that to pass. Do nothing until it passes, nothing. Then move on to the next item in the fiscal cliff. He holds all the cards, there is nothing stopping this path. Let John boehner have to pass just that pass or explain to America why he won't. This is the hardball Obama should be playing. Reid can deliver it in the senate

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,538
    vCash
    1500
    the spending is a proposed infrastructure program...
    roads and bridges.

    Did you even read the article Longhorn?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11,032
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.
    spending actually increased the LEAST under Obama versus any President since Eisenhower....the 2 Bushes and Reagan included. this MYTH that Obama is a big spender and that Progressives = big spending REALLY needs to end. in fact...according to FACTS, the Republicans are the big spenders...not Democrats.

    source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/


    "Hard" Kobe getting shook by a role player

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,849
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by FOBolous View Post
    spending actually increased the LEAST under Obama versus any President since Eisenhower....the 2 Bushes and Reagan included. this MYTH that Obama is a big spender and that Progressives = big spending REALLY needs to end. in fact...according to FACTS, the Republicans are the big spenders...not Democrats.

    source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    That article is at best a half truth...

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...pendthrift.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak



    Basically...

    This guy talks about a percentage increase instead of an actual dollar increase. If spending goes from $100 to $110, then it has increased 10%. If spending goes from $1,000 to $1,090 then it has increased only 9%. Now how do you spin these numbers? Well, you could say that under the first scenario, spending increased by 10% whereas under the second scenario it only increased by 9%. However, in terms of dollars spent, nine times as many dollars were spent under scenario two than were spent under scenario one. You can talk about percentages all day long but Obama has spent more money than Bush Jr. in less than half the time. Period.

    That doesn't absolve Bush as our giant mess can essentially be laid square on the shoulders of him and Greenspan but this Obama is a small spender **** is totally bull.

    When Bush took office, the debt was around $5.6 trillion; when he left, it was around $10 trillion which represents a 78.5% increase. When Obama took office, the debt was around $10 trillion and now it is about $16 trillion, which represents a 60% increase. In dollar terms, Obama added $1.5 trillion more than Bush in less than half the time. So forget the percentages, the question is would you rather have $4.5 trillion added to the debt or $6 trillion? The Republicans tried to spin this when Bush was president. Dick Morris (an accurate first name by the way) used to say that Bush's spending increases were a smaller percentage of GDP than in previous years. Well, if the GDP is $10 trillion, then a 3% spending increase would be $300 billion in spending. If the GDP is $15 trillion, you may only increase spending by 2.75% which would be $375 billion so although you spend less as a percentage of GDP, you spend more money in dollar terms that we don't have which results in us having to borrow, tax or print $375 billion and causes the price of good and services in America to go up; hence, we all get poorer.

    This is all you have to see to know this article is and was a load of lies.

    2008: $2.98 trillion
    2009: $3.27 trillion
    2010: $3.46 trillion
    2011: $3.60 trillion
    2012: $3.65 trillion
    2013: $3.72 trillion


    There's no decrease there...
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,982
    vCash
    1500
    Let's be real about tax revenues, both sides are wrong on the issue. The deficit is not going to be solved by one class taking on the burden. Overall tax reform is needed and potentially new taxes replaces old in effective taxes.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,725
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    We have a spending problem. Libs think that debt doesn't matter............and it's responsible to keep raising our debt limit.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,675
    vCash
    1500

    Obama proposes more spending.

    Great just what we need, more DEBT!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Def against the tax increases but I know that we will have them probably not to that extent though.

    More against the 50 billion in spending. For one lets not say we have a debt problem then say lets spend more which is what Obama is doing, and 50 billion will have little help on to the economy which is what a "stimulus" is designed to do.

    I think he can do better then 400 billion in cuts, especially when proposing 1.6 trillion in taxes. Didn't he a year ago say he'd cut 10 bucks for every 1 dollar in tax increases? This is no where near that. But 400 billion is a decent start.

    Def against raising the inheritance tax at all. The money has been taxed it's a double tax to me. I like that some Democrat senators are against that. And man I feel sorry for the poor sap dying on Jan 2nd next year with just over a million in savings and his or her air's are left with 450k That's just horrible to me.

    But overall right now it's going to be a lot of rhetoric till we get right to the cliff because that's how politics works sadly.
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,738
    vCash
    1500
    How is it that when the tax cuts and the wars are going to account for such a percentage of government spending (other thread) is it that we have a "spending problem"? Unless you mean war spending, in which case I agree with you.

    Social Security doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!
    Medicare doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!

    These programs are financed through tax revenue and while they need changes or tweaks, cutting them won't do a damn thing to the debt or deficit.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    How is it that when the tax cuts and the wars are going to account for such a percentage of government spending (other thread) is it that we have a "spending problem"? Unless you mean war spending, in which case I agree with you.

    Social Security doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!
    Medicare doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!

    These programs are financed through tax revenue and while they need changes or tweaks, cutting them won't do a damn thing to the debt or deficit.
    We have more then a war problem. Considering we've had what 3 years with a balanced budget and a surplus in the last 60 years it's more then just wars and tax cuts.

    And yes if you keep the taxes at what they are and cut into medicare it will reduce the deficit as long as you don't raise spending somewhere else.
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •