Jump to content

Libs: Is it spending ot taxes?


Recommended Posts

Libs, do you believe the government spends too much money or that Americans are taxed too little?

U caN'T even get the ? right. The ? is why should the VERY RICH pay lower marginal AND effective tax rates than a family making $400,000/yr.?

 

JELLY FISH instead of shell fish is the really BIG concern of too much CO2 in our atmosphere & oceans.

This is something DELIBERATELY IGNORED by FIXEDnewsCORP IDIOTS.

 

http://www.dailymail...-predators.html

Even if climate change is debatable, which I don't believe, increased acidification is an observable consequence of our CO2 emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

U caN'T even get the ? right. The ? is why should the VERY RICH pay lower marginal AND effective tax rates than a family making $400,000/yr.?

 

JELLY FISH instead of shell fish is the really BIG concern of too much CO2 in our atmosphere & oceans.

This is something DELIBERATELY IGNORED by FIXEDnewsCORP IDIOTS.

 

http://www.dailymail...-predators.html

Even if climate change is debatable, which I don't believe, increased acidification is an observable consequence of our CO2 emissions.

 

They don't pay less. LOL! Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

U caN'T even get the ? right. The ? is why should the VERY RICH pay lower marginal AND effective tax rates than a family making $400,000/yr.?

 

JELLY FISH instead of shell fish is the really BIG concern of too much CO2 in our atmosphere & oceans.

This is something DELIBERATELY IGNORED by FIXEDnewsCORP IDIOTS.

 

http://www.dailymail...-predators.html

Even if climate change is debatable, which I don't believe, increased acidification is an observable consequence of our CO2 emissions.

 

You are an idiot. They will never pay their fair share according to libs because you guys are so greedy you will always want more from them. 40%, not enough. How about 50%? Nope! Not enough. How about 75%? HA! Nope. It will never be enough to you people. So how about you anser the question and stop your usual lib tactics by changing the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone who would say prove it must not have any money

 

Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you did, idiot (maybe not you as you are likely making less than $25,000 a year)


Libs, do you believe the government spends too much money or that Americans are taxed too little?

You dont understand how this country got here, do you.

 

Which is why you should put on your Walmart uniform, go to work, shut up and leave the important stuff to the adults

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't pay less. LOL! Nice try though.

 

Ask Warren Buffet, his tax rate on all his income, including capital gains, is lower than his secretaries.

 

To answer the OP, I think it is a little bit of both. We spend too much, and we could afford to raise taxes. Right now probably isn't the right time to address either issue, look at Obama keeping the Bush Tax Cuts around, but one day we'll need to make some tough choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ask Warren Buffet, his tax rate on all his income, including capital gains, is lower than his secretaries.

 

To answer the OP, I think it is a little bit of both. We spend too much, and we could afford to raise taxes. Right now probably isn't the right time to address either issue, look at Obama keeping the Bush Tax Cuts around, but one day we'll need to make some tough choices.

I dont know. In the past, I think it would work to keep taxes low and spend less. Unfortunately, I cannot say to any degree of certainity if that would work because this country has never really kept spending down. Tax rates have flucuated of course, but government spending has always increased. So I cant find any example in our history to whether or not it would work. However, mathematically, it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax rates under Ike

 

90%

 

Nixon

 

70%

 

then raygun shot it all to hell and look where we are now, it is called cause and effect, idiot

This says nothing about spending. The OP is about how the two relate. If we have only 1% taxes, but the government spends and spends and spends, then whats the point? Same if we had 90%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says nothing about spending. The OP is about how the two relate. If we have only 1% taxes, but the government spends and spends and spends, then whats the point? Same if we had 90%.

oh, spending, i see

so you must hate Bush, W...he is the one who put us in the fix we are in

 

Obama has cut the deficit, but I assume you know that

spending doesnt really bother you, didnt when bush did it

what bothers you is any spending on poor or minorities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone who would say prove it must not have any money

Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you did, idiot (maybe not you as you are likely making less than $25,000 a year)

No, he didn't. His reported effective tax rate during the election was 14.xx%, mine was 12.xx%. And its very presumptuous of you to try to predict what my family income is. If I was making less than $25K, wouldn't I be voting democrat and on your side for every arguement so I could get more free government stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 4, 2014 7:27 p.m. ET

President Obama released his 2015 budget proposal on Tuesday, and the best way to understand it is as a campaign-strategy memo to return Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. After the rude four-year interruption of a GOP House, Mr. Obama is revving up the tax and spend engines to turn out Democrats this fall and change the debate away from ObamaCare.


One of the President's more amusing fiscal sleights-of-hand is his claim that the federal government has been enduring "austerity." Taxpayers should be so lucky. The nearby table shows the arc of tax revenues and spending during the Obama Presidency, and you can see they are both up. Washington has rarely had it so good.













The feds spent $2.98 trillion in 2008 and Mr. Obama is proposing to spend $1 trillion more than that in fiscal 2015. The Pelosi-Obama stimulus blew out the bank in 2009-2011, the GOP House imposed a modicum of restraint in the next two years, but Mr. Obama is going back to the Pelosi future from here on out.


His budget would increase outlays by nearly $450 billion from fiscal 2013, and almost none of it for defense. Spending in 2015 would hit 21.4% of GDP, up from 20.8% in 2013. Outlays would rise by another $1 trillion by 2020, much of it fueled by the exploding costs of ObamaCare, and would reach an astonishing $6 trillion by 2024. If Democrats do take the House and Senate, you can bet spending will rise even faster.


Mr. Obama's budget nonetheless says that the deficit will fall to $564 billion in 2015, or 3.1% of GDP. How would that happen? Well, because tax revenues are booming. Revenues hit $2.77 trillion in 2013—a new federal record—and the Obama budget foresees them growing another 20%, to $3.33 trillion in fiscal 2015. Receipts will hit 18.3% of GDP in 2015, well above the 40-year average of 17.4%, and they'll keep rising to 19.9% a decade from now. But Mr. Obama says the government is starved for revenue and thus any tax reform must raise another $1 trillion on top of all this.


The President's budget proposes to spread all this cash around to various voter groups and Democratic constituencies. Mr. Obama would fund public preschool for every four year old and create a new fund to underwrite paid family leave in the states. There's more for job training programs that haven't shown they can train workers for jobs, and more for shovel-ready road projects that may or may not be shovel-ready. And don't forget a new $1 billion fund for efforts to combat climate change, which means more payola for green crony capitalists.


The big spending loser is the military, which will impress Vladimir Putin, though not in a good way. The proposed 2015 $623 billion defense budget is 3.4% of GDP and would be cut by nearly $39 billion more in 2016 to 3% and 2.3% by 2023. The last time the U.S. spent that small a share of the economy on defense was 1.7% in 1940. Readers who attended schools that still taught American history may recall that was not a good year for global stability.







Bloomberg






By contrast, Mr. Obama's budget leaves entitlement program spending on cruise control. He has dropped from the budget last year's modest proposal to make the calculation for cost-of-living increases in Social Security more accurate—a bow to the protests by liberal Democrats.


Inequality and class warfare will be big Democratic themes this election year, so Mr. Obama has obliged with more tax increases on business to finance more tax credits for workers. Millions of Americans already pay no income taxes, and Mr. Obama would take more of them off the rolls by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to 13.5 million childless Americans—at a cost of $60 billion over 10 years. These credits are "refundable," which means you get a check even if you have no net tax liability.


This EITC expansion deserves longer treatment, not least because the Treasury Inspector General reports that the current program loses at least $11 billion a year to improper payments. But as a policy matter the earned credit was designed to be a substitute for the minimum wage that wouldn't price workers out of the job market. Instead, Mr. Obama wants to expand the EITC and raise the minimum wage.


Mr. Obama's budget doesn't make even a token outreach to the GOP, and in that regard it is at least honest. With Democrats at risk of losing the Senate, Mr. Obama views a revival of tax and spend as his party's best 2014 campaign pitch. Americans will have to decide if they like what about half of them will be paying for.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he didn't. His reported effective tax rate during the election was 14.xx%, mine was 12.xx%. And its very presumptuous of you to try to predict what my family income is. If I was making less than $25K, wouldn't I be voting democrat and on your side for every arguement so I could get more free government stuff?

dont know who you are, but my effective tax rate was higher than that a$$holes and while I make good money it is NOTHING like that criminals take

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont know who you are, but my effective tax rate was higher than that a$$holes and while I make good money it is NOTHING like that criminals take

If that is the case, you need to get a CPA or a lawyer or something because you are getting taken to the cleaners unless you are self-employed. Maybe instead of making those evil rich people pay more, you should be asking why you aren't paying less. Ever think about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, you need to get a CPA or a lawyer or something because you are getting taken to the cleaners unless you are self-employed. Maybe instead of making those evil rich people pay more, you should be asking why you aren't paying less. Ever think about that?

you are clueless...really you are...i dont know where to begin with such a statement, clearly you make under $75,000 a year which would explain your clueless state

 

evil rich? man, your brain washing is complete I see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government spends too much and the rich are taxed too little!

 

So I guess that makes me a bagger-lib!

yes, we spend WAY too much on the military and not nearly enough on infrastructure and helping people survive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can LEGALLY reduce the fed. rate. Most of the crybabies here have no clue because they never took a risk, started a business or made an investment. My rate is %.11 on $90,000 +. It has taken hard work over a period of many years to achieve that. The fed. tax rules apply to every person equally. Do the schleps here even bother to read the rules? Nooooo. Whiners here have no clue how tax rates can be lowered. The reason they know nothing about tax rules is they never made an investment. All these infants want to do is cry about Buffet, tax more and spend other peoples money on knucklehead schemes to create their idea of nirvana. Here is a good tip. "Lucky Lady in the ninth race" Saps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

 

01b-bush-vs-obama-spending.jpg

You have a habit of posting graphs without understanding the facts behind them. This is a misleading picture because he uses 2009 spending levels as a baseline for determining how much spending has increased under Obama. They note that 2009 was an anomaly year because of the huge expense of the Wall Street bailout, which began under President George W. Bush but was supported by Obama. Because budget years begin in October, a new president is not typically considered responsible for all the spending that takes place in his first months in office. If you take a look at * mark with Bush, then look at what that means you will find that Obama's stimulus package was creditied to Bush since it happened before October of 2009. However, it was Obama that put it through, but they wont count it as such. Also, we were at 10 trillion in 2009. We are at 17 trillion now, Come on, do the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...