^^^ yes, I hadn't heard those exact numbers, but I've heard of a number of occasions about how Obama wants to increase taxes the most and correspondingly, increase spending the most.

I wanted Hillary to win it actually. That's not going to happen. Now, I'm crossing my fingers that the rest of the party forces him to get it under control, which I think can happen.

let's post this



good info

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 8:48:26 PM

By no means am I proud of the spending the repubs did when in control. I can understand the tax cuts, taking a big hit from 9/11, and war spending.. But increasing entitlements with a massive drug plan is over the top.

They deserved to lose in 06, but youve seen the dems are no better. We need another party. But until one has a real shot, Ill choose which one will be the lesser of two evils.

5/12/2008 8:50:25 PM

^ ding

5/12/2008 8:53:44 PM

Yeah, and I could still vote republicans if somehow I thought they would get it under control and the dems were on a failboat.

What people are saying about the healthcare thing is right though. They have been thinking they'll have the 2008 election in the bag just like in 2004 so they're putting all the ideology they can into it so people like me will have no choice but to vote for it.

Republicans will pull the same sort of shit. I mean, when I don't have an issue to vote D/R on, I'll turn in a 100% libertarian ticket.

politicians suck balls, fo real.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ^^ yeah, ding.]

5/12/2008 8:54:35 PM

Frog, another interesting read is about a republican congressman that proposed a budget admendment that would fund 111 of 188 spending proposals obama has mentioned. Its called Amendment 4246, and it failed miserably. But it proved a good point, we cant afford obama and the media doesnt care to report it.

Here is the article:

Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.”

Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion?

Senator Allard offers some comparisons to help with that mental exercise:

• This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.

• This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures).

• It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net).

• It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs” and, referencing S. Con. Res. 70, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, lists 111 items in the format of “On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $5,120,000,000.”

According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.”

Of course, the problem with government spending is that government only has the money it takes from taxpayers. Senator Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama’s budget-busting proposals:

“According to CBO, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called it the ‘largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.’ But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single-year.”

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.”

Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.

If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class.

“So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

“To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.” (emphasis added)

Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!”

It is not only individuals would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-rama: “If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. And when you raise their taxes markedly, it’s going to markedly have an adverse effect on the economy.” This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase which small businesses will face when the Democratic congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts.

In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk.

As Senator Burr pointedly warned, Congress must not “fictitiously propose that the federal government can increase spending and in fact balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase — we will balance it on the backs of every American who can’t afford any more taxes.”

Even John McCain, who admits not to be an expert on economics, should be able to tear apart Obama’s proposed spending spree. He could take Obama to task gently, saying “If I can see that my opponent’s plans are a recipe for national bankruptcy, any American can.” That leaves Obama either having to defend the indefensible, or backing away from the “progressive” agenda which is much of the basis of his support from naïve liberals, primarily young or rich.

Senator Allard has put Barack Obama in an uncomfortable position. As Allard staffer Steve Wymer put it, the Obama Spend-o-Rama Amendment is “just one step in trying to bring some truth to the budgeting process.”

The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise. Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor. Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that "(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.”

5/12/2008 8:59:38 PM

Quote :

"Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to sound as ridiculous as possible? "

I'm pretty sure Rat is just blatantly trolling.

Quote :

"Moron, do you think the national debt grew by 5 trillion over the last 8 yrs? Dont google it, just give me your opinion. And while you are at it, do you think that Obama will lower the debt? "

Why do you care about my opinion? Only the facts matter, and the fact is the debt did grow by around 5 trillion the past 8 years.

Why would I think Obama would lower the debt? No candidate running is going to lower the debt, if that were my issue, i'd be SOL.

I don't see how people take McCain's spending proposals seriously either. People constantly accuse Obama of having no substance, when he has the most detailed description of his plans, but McCain talks about "cutting spending" without having a clue as to how he actually will do this, especially when he wants to continue the Iraq war, and the zealots are all over his nuts.

And on top of this, I don't really care too much about the debt issue. I was just trying to explain mrfrog's initial post on the issue to you, where you wrongly accused him of spouting chain mail BS.

5/12/2008 9:06:50 PM

Quote :

"No candidate running is going to lower the debt, if that were my issue, i'd be SOL."

5/12/2008 9:11:10 PM

Quote :

"Only the facts matter, and the fact is the debt did grow by around 5 trillion the past 8 years. "

WOW. I think you really believe that. Ok moron, Im done with you. There is no point in showing you there isnt a monster under your bed, youll simply believe what you want.

5/12/2008 9:14:42 PM

^ haha, okay, i'll make things easy for you:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Go there, note the debt as of today. Put in the year 2000. Subtract. Voila.

5/12/2008 9:18:25 PM

Does anyone have any data on what the democrats did after getting control of congress in 06?

My general image is:

-They only got a hairbreadth margin, like 51% and in cases just haven't been able to exert their majority
-Were "of course" going to stop the out of control spending and entitlements
-Did not, and increased them instead

But at the same time, I've been hearing there is like this new band of democrats in the senate who are selling themselves as the "democratic fiscal conservatives" and now refuse to vote for anything at all if it's not specifically paid for. That's the kind of leadership I want to see from them.

5/12/2008 9:19:09 PM

good website. Thanks

Using your website:

jan 20, 2001 5.7 T. debt

may 9, 2008 9.3T

Difference 3.6 T, pathetic.. but not 5. I actually thought it was around 3.

Of the 9T owed, 4.1 is foreign. I wonder how much is owed to us? Or can we just not pay it? LOL
I looked around that website moron, is there a way to tell how much is owed to us from foreign countries?

5/12/2008 9:33:38 PM

5/12/2008 9:34:35 PM

^LOL. So easy to roll your eyes at 1.4 Trillion, half of our bloated yearly budget. Esp when you arent a taxpayer. Just wait, when you graduate and have a good job, your politics will change my friend. It will take a couple of years.

You are in engineering. If your answer is off 28%, that considered significant? Or you just roll your eyes?

Taking it back to may 9, 2000 (to get your last 8 yrs) the difference goes to 3.7 trillion change.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ..]

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 9:38:03 PM

i thought taxes were only raising for like people making over 250k

5/12/2008 9:45:30 PM

^Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.

5/12/2008 9:46:33 PM

I was under the impression you were discussing the issue of Republicans loving to spend, instead of playing pedantic little games. But, that's a pretty typical tactic when you're losing an argument. Because this is definitely an appropriate response to mrfrog's post when your actual problem is with the exact calculation, not his argument:

Quote :

"LOL, yeah there is a party for emotional overexaggerators. Sounds like you have found it. "No thanks" to what? Having a clue to whatever BS you spout out? 5 trillion MORE. hahah, gtf out. Please forward me the email you got that from. "

Does the statement really change with:

Quote :

""I'm not a fan of the republicans borrowing $3,589,142,741,179.10 more on my behalf. I mean, no thanks. "

Is 3.589 TRILLION not a lot of money to you? I guess the eye dr. business is far more successful than I could have possibly imagined.

5/12/2008 9:51:33 PM

where do you hear me defending that kind of spending? I dont think the majority of republican find it acceptible, just look at his approval numbers.

Like i said earlier I thought the number was around 3 T. You proved it was 3.5, kudos. So being off 30% isnt a big deal to an engineer? Remind me not to drive over any new bridges.

The point about spending is to look at what the candidates are saying. Obama is promising to massively increase spending, if you believe his talk. I just dont see how any rational person thinks thats a good idea.

Like I said moron, one day you will work and pay taxes. Your opinion will probably change, I know mine did.

5/12/2008 9:56:27 PM

1) CPEs don't design bridges (not the kind you drive on anyway)
2) I thought the actual number was around $4T, but it wasn't mrfrog's main point, and was never my point, so it's not relevant

I already do work and pay taxes. And it's a myth that people who make more (above $100k at least) swing conservative, and I highly doubt when I make more money, i'll ever think like you.

Obama's ideal spending is going to be similar to Bush's, and if we're going to be spending money, i'd rather it be to help out Americans, rather than to get revenge for Bush and his pappy.

5/12/2008 10:05:34 PM

so you feel that most of the money is spent in iraq? When over half our budget is spent on entitlements. And no, obama plans to INCREASE spending past what bush is doing my friend.

My point was when your taxes eat up a large portion of your income, it will change your views. Im not asking or telling you to think like me, Im just saying people get more conservative as they get older and more mature.

'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.
-Winston Churchill

you have a good night moron. I enjoyed the conversation.

5/12/2008 10:11:01 PM

Quote :

"Of the 9T owed, 4.1 is foreign. I wonder how much is owed to us? Or can we just not pay it? LOL I looked around that website moron, is there a way to tell how much is owed to us from foreign countries?"

Whatever portion of foreign government debt is held in the US, it's not held by our government - unless they borrowed yet someone else's money to do that.

Yes, that would be nice if it was just a matter of us borrowing 1 trillion from Japan and them borrowing 1 trillion from us. If we had the same rates, we could just borrow INFINITE money!!

All money borrowed by governments are "investments" held by people in some form or fashion. A large amount of the money is held by central banks, which I think that 4.1 trillion number might represent. A nation's central bank holding an investment doesn't mean the government owns it.

It used to be that governments literally held capital. Gold standard, etc. But even today it would be incorrect to say that the government doesn't posses stuff worth money. There are government buildings, technology, and all sorts of things that the government holds that's worth money, and summing those items probably wouldn't equal the national debt, ie, the US government still isn't exactly a net negative value entity. But then again, you could kind of say that all fiat currency is sort of a representation of debt to those who hold the money. Plus the fact that a city of government agencies funded by tax money can't necessarily make money like a real investment.

But this is purely musings at this point. Things work the way they are, and you can build whatever logic you want to around that.

---
And yeah ok, 5 trillion was spam mail-ish. I and everyone else here knew well and good that debt went ~6 in 2000 to ~9 now.

00-08 term we accumulated 3.5 T of directly accounted for debt. I could make plenty of arguments to say the REAL increase in debt is much greater, but that would be spam mail-ish. I apologize.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 10:19:09 PM

Quote :

"And it's a myth that people who make more (above $100k at least) swing conservative"

I agree, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

Quote :

"My point was when your taxes eat up a large portion of your income, it will change your views. Im not asking or telling you to think like me, Im just saying people get more conservative as they get older and more mature."

I SURE AM GLAD I DON'T MAKE MUCH MONEY, LOLZ

5/12/2008 10:26:47 PM

Neither

I'd say ideas matter more

5/12/2008 10:27:42 PM

^^ Also this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/02/us/politics/1102-nat-webPOLL.gif

note to eyedrb: the point of the chart is the trends, not the numbers

5/12/2008 10:58:19 PM

Quote :

"1) CPEs don't design bridges (not the kind you drive on anyway)"

LOL

Today at work i was having a discussion about the differences btw congressman and senators. Some how i drew up the analogy that congressman are like high pass filters who must adapt to the highly changing public opinion regarding issues else risk not being elected. On the other hand senators are like low pass filters and are less effected by rapidly changing news as they have 6 years to make their mark.

5/12/2008 11:03:02 PM

Quote :

"hey honkeytroll....maybe if gamecat or marko posted something to read rather than pictures i wouldnt have to look like an idiot?"

You think that was trolling? Again I say. Read, you'll embarrass yourself less often.

I can't imagine anyone spending any significant amount of time on a forum totally dedicated to political discussion and not knowing at least a little about the history of party politics in America.

It's pretty pathetic, and so is your approach to debate.

5/13/2008 6:41:20 AM

Generalizations 101:

People who vote based on their selfish knee-jerk reactions in regards to their taxable income generally vote republican. I think many people would be surprised to find out just how many people vote republican simply because they don't care about anything else except getting the biggest cut of the money that they earned.

It's rather simple. It doesn't have to involve religion, tradition, culture or race. Just dollah bills yall! The only problem with this logic/philosophy is that the republicans are no longer the tax cutting/fiscally conservative party that they used to be.

They send us rebate checks for 600 dollars while at the same time jeopardizing our nation's international credit by maxing out our childrens future credit.

Bait and switch? Yes, indeed.

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 9:17 AM. Reason : -]

5/13/2008 9:06:51 AM

Quote :

"surprised to find out just how many people vote republican simply because they don't care about anything else except getting the biggest cut of the money that they earned."

The nerve of those people, wanting to keep more of the money they worked for. They should be glad to have it taken without consent and given to those who choose not to work.

I thought the stimulus package was passed after 06, that would be a democratic congress my friend. You know, the ones that promised cheaper gas.

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 9:53:05 AM

What was done (our current national debt) and what was promised (cheaper gas?) are not the same by comparison.

As you’re no doubt aware, President Bush pushed the economic stimulus package in the hopes of stalling the impending recession.

5/13/2008 10:04:00 AM

I just think it illustrates how bad BOTH parties are. They make all sort of BS promises to get elected then dont deliver, like your cheaper gas. There is no excuse to be spending like we are, thats why I cant vote for someone who will dramatically increase spending. Its the wrong direction, imo.

I think the stimulus checks were a horrible idea. What is ironic to me is that the dems are all about getting money to the people to better the economy, yet in the next breath want to raise taxes. Thats gubment logic for ya.

5/13/2008 10:12:10 AM

I agree with Stimwalt that repubs are more likely to vote because of their own self-interest in less taxes. However, there is not necessarily anything wrong with this. They earned money and have every right to want to protect it. Ironically though the so called "conservatives" have not been doing a good job under Dubya in reducing gov't expenses. In contrary the democrat before him did a better job; unless that is you are in the top 2% that benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts.

On the other side, however, you could also say this is true about poor people voting democrat. They vote bleeding heart liberals because they know they are more likely to get their sympathy and thus milking more welfare/social service dollars out of the gov't

5/13/2008 10:20:25 AM

I agree that the two-party system is broken, and its becomes quite obvious when you assume that I'm a democrat simply because I think Bush is an idiot.

^

That's true, the same can be said in that regard. This is the overall problem with our political system.

Pepsi or Coke?

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM. Reason : -]

5/13/2008 10:21:37 AM

Quote :

"I just think it illustrates how bad BOTH parties are."

democrats = no freedom to do what you want with your paycheck, BUT you are free to do what you wish personally (get an abortion, get married to your same-sex partner, etc.)

republicans = more freedom with the money you make, no freedom to get abortions etc.

I thought this country was based on being free from tyranny. Neither party is about complete freedom, so I'll vote for whoever allows us the *most* freedom in our personal lives and economically.

5/13/2008 11:17:41 AM

Quote :

"the two-party system is broken, and its becomes quite obvious when you assume that I'm a democrat simply because I think Bush is an idiot."

5/13/2008 11:35:22 AM

^^that's why I should be president.

I'm for financial freedom AND pro choice

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ^^]

5/13/2008 11:36:09 AM

Quote :

"unless that is you are in the top 2% that benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. "

HUR, Im ashamed I read that from you. Dont buy into that bullshit. A married couple making 50k got a 21% tax cut. The "rich" over 125k got a 10% cut.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/3/10/thumb_300_mark_pery_1_second_try.jpg&imgrefurl=http://seekingalpha.com/article/67787-comparing-clinton-and-bush-on-income-taxes&h=531&w=300&sz=30&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=Jex0r_7TrqsAOM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Btax%2Bcuts%2Bfor%2Ball%2Bincome%2Bbrackets%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

VIx, Im a strong fiscal conservative and Im prochoice, with limits.

I also think bush is an idiot, does that make you think Im a democrat?

another link:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart6_lg.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm&h=405&w=787&sz=23&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=M1iMOww3JfOXpM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Btax%2Bcuts%2Bfor%2Ball%2Bincome%2Bbrackets%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 11:48:14 AM

Quote :

"But at the same time, I've been hearing there is like this new band of democrats in the senate who are selling themselves as the "democratic fiscal conservatives" and now refuse to vote for anything at all if it's not specifically paid for. That's the kind of leadership I want to see from them."

I will vote for them if they turn up like the Contract with America did in 1994.

That will be the day I vote democratic.




[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ^ tiny url plz]

5/13/2008 11:49:15 AM

too bad Romney was a mormon and the right wing sheep wouldn't vote for him

he was pro choice when rape and complications for the mother were factors, and an economic genius.

oh well. now the rpubs are stuck with mccainy grandpa

5/13/2008 11:51:11 AM

better than stuck with GOD DAMN AMERICA or AMERICA'S CHICKENS... ARE COMING HOME... to ROOST

5/13/2008 11:55:07 AM

^

5/13/2008 11:55:59 AM

I only need to look at the graph at the top of the page to know who I am voting for, even if he is not on the ballot (ron paul)

because everyone else is just varying degrees of the same thing

5/13/2008 12:01:11 PM

Quote :

"I also think bush is an idiot, does that make you think Im a democrat? "

No, it doesn't, and Americans should be able to make judgement calls without being branded a part of the RED team or the BLUE team. These archaic party lines cloud and derail our common goals from reaching fruition. This is precisely why we need a new political system and it's the main reason we get nothing done.

5/13/2008 12:02:19 PM

^I agree.

I think the media is somewhat to blame. Every political show labels people.. You are either a liberal socialist or a right wing conservative neocon war mongerer. Then they have one from each party yell at eachother for the segment. People just arent willing to talk or listen to another persons views without attackign anymore.

5/13/2008 12:04:54 PM

i don't think you have to blame the media as much as you can lay it on human nature to steer and thrive on things when labeled into good&bad/black & white/etc

i mean the federalists/anti-federalists didn't have cable news...though a couple of them did own newspapers

didn't the romans have 2 major political parties too?



[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM. Reason : +]

5/13/2008 12:10:41 PM

^like i said, let's just give a landslide victory to one of the candidates with a house and senate and all..

and get some major work done with full support

5/13/2008 12:15:13 PM

is that a one-party or no-party system?

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : +]

5/13/2008 12:16:30 PM

nah, just let the other party sit back for 4 years and figure out how the other party screwed up. and when they screw up we vote in the other party.


pretty much what we currently do anyways, except we only give them 51% of the government and call that a majority. lol

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 12:17:25 PM

isn't that essentially what's been going on for years?

5/13/2008 12:18:02 PM

^see edit


which means: no one party is really ever able to acheive any measure of success worthy of their time spent in office.

8 years is plenty of time to get stuff done. except we just aren't seeing that with these 51-55% majorities

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 12:18:16 PM

there's always secession

5/13/2008 12:19:20 PM

^ true, and the US tried that once to get away from big government. too bad for the "north" this time b/c 80% of the armed forces is republicans. lol

5/13/2008 12:20:37 PM