StreetScooby 5 #1 August 5, 2011 That's equal to the total corporate profit in America. With the corporate tax rate at 39% (a combination of state average and federal rates), our government needs to realize it has a massive spending problem.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #2 August 5, 2011 I'm sure it's hard to realize you have a spending problem when you're not spending your own money ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #3 August 5, 2011 Quoteour government needs to realize it has a massive spending problem. Not according to the Libs. The Govt just need to collect the "Fair Share"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 2 #4 August 5, 2011 Most in Congress are totally clueless about anything. It's very scary and discouraging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 August 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteour government needs to realize it has a massive spending problem. Not according to the Libs. The Govt just need to collect the "Fair Share" The "Lib" in the White House wants to cut the corporate tax rate but he's getting push back from some in corporate America because no one actually pays their marginal tax rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #6 August 5, 2011 $6.1T, that was the cost of the Bush era tax cuts. almost half of our deficit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 August 5, 2011 Quote $6.1T, that was the cost of the Bush era tax cuts. almost half of our deficit. Bush ran deficits of about $100B per year, while Obama is running that per month. To compare the two doesn't make sense.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 August 5, 2011 I'm sitting here wondering why more lefties haven't made comments. Guess these facts would get in the way of their normal insights We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #9 August 5, 2011 QuoteQuote $6.1T, that was the cost of the Bush era tax cuts. almost half of our deficit. Bush ran deficits of about $100B per year, while Obama is running that per month. To compare the two doesn't make sense. Your facts are just plain incorrect. Bush's deficit was never as low as 100B for a year: the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. It went up dramatically in 2008 and exploded in 2009. I'm not sure those figures include the two wars he got us involved in (which were kept off-budget and funded by emergency appropriations but which have to be paid for nonetheless). (I am not an Obama partisan)."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 August 5, 2011 Quote Your facts are just plain incorrect. Bush's deficit was never as low as 100B for a year: Could you provide a citation for your figures. I'll go and try to track mine down, also. Thanks.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 August 5, 2011 QuoteIt went up dramatically in 2008 and exploded in 2009. Yup... I'm sure the Democrats taking over control of Congress was just a coincidence. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #12 August 5, 2011 QuoteQuote Your facts are just plain incorrect. Bush's deficit was never as low as 100B for a year: Could you provide a citation for your figures. I'll go and try to track mine down, also. Thanks. Sure but these figures are widely available and agree at pretty much every site I've looked at (within a small margin of error anyway). Here's a Heritage Foundation piece, I trust you won't accuse them of being lefties distorting the truth: http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-limbaugh/budget-smoke-and-mirrors-where-s-the-outrage.html"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #13 August 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt went up dramatically in 2008 and exploded in 2009. Yup... I'm sure the Democrats taking over control of Congress was just a coincidence. I wasn't really addressing causality, only posting correct figures."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #14 August 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt went up dramatically in 2008 and exploded in 2009. Yup... I'm sure the Democrats taking over control of Congress was just a coincidence. You nailed it. Here's an interesting read that I've posted before. Feel free to attack the messenger if you like. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/ Some teasers: No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy. As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue. (Notice a trend here?) an examination of numerous government reports over the past few years shows the administration has had difficulties in stewarding the taxpayer money spent on the mission — a total of more than $5 trillion on wars abroad and anti-terrorism efforts at home since 2002. Of that, hundreds of billions was misspent, in large part due to a broken contracting system, according to congressional oversight reports. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reviewed 700 projects and found $1.1 trillion in spending from 2002 to 2008 that was plagued by “significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.” Domestic spending also rose in almost every category as the White House, bargaining to get what it wanted for defense and national security, accommodated what even its supporters see as wasteful domestic spending in Congress. “Basically, we have had in the past eight years an unending growth in government and ever higher increases in the level of spending,” said Phil Gramm, And you might like this one..... Contractors, says scholar Paul Light, are a primary reason why the number of government employees - when military personnel and contract employees are included - rose from 11 million in 1999 to 14.6 million in 2005. The Bush administration did push through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But Mr. Bush’s legacy on spending will likely be that he did not try to restrain it until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. “We’ve had too much government and too much spending, and … the size of government has grown by 40 percent in the last eight years. We can’t afford that in the next eight years,” Mr. McCain said... Give it a read if you're interested in a conservative's perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 August 5, 2011 QuoteBut Mr. Bush’s legacy on spending will likely be that he did not try to restrain it until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. FY 2004 was the highest deficit of the Bush years, at 413 B. It dropped each year after that, ending up at 161 B for the final Republican budget (FY 2007). Democrats took over in January 2007 and posted their first budget for FY 2008. 2004: 413 B 2005: 318 B 2006: 248 B 2007 (Last Republican Congress budget): 161 B 2008 (First Democrat Congress budget): 458 B 2009: 1412 B The Dems haven't passed a budget since 2009, but relied on 'continuing resolutions' for their spending.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #16 August 5, 2011 Quote I'm sitting here wondering why more lefties haven't made comments. Guess these facts would get in the way of their normal insights Maybe it's YOUR facts that are wrong. BUSH'S 2008 deficit totaled $455 billion BUSH'S budget for 2009 involved a deficit of $482 billion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 August 5, 2011 Quote$6.1T, that was the cost of the Bush era tax cuts. almost half of our deficit. Hmmm. You do realize that in the year 2000 it was the first time the US tax revenues exceeding $2 trillion? But the stock market crashed that year and fell below 42 trillion.. Then in 2005, the tax revenues exceeded it at $2.1 trillion. Then $2.4 trillion. Then $2.5 trillion in 2007. So it's curious to me - tax revenues that were higher than at any other time in history somehow caused this bad problem? Did you know that in 2000 tax receipts exceeded 20% of the GDP for the only time in history? Yet, a lower tax rate actually increased the revenue? It is, once again, the failure to recognize that the more a person has taken the less a person will produce. It's not falling revenue.There'd be no deficit if spending stayed at 2002 levels. Federal outlays exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in 1987. It exceeded $2 trillion for the first time in 2002. It exceeded $3 trillion for the first time in 2009 (it actually exceeded $3.5 trillion that year). It is projected to exceed $4 trillion by 2015. So we've had a nice steady growth of tax revenues. And a massive growth in spending. You know the "Bush Era tax cuts" had tax revenues ranging from 19.5% of GDP in 2001 down to 16.1% in 2004 and up to 18.5% in 2007. Revenues have been 14.9% of GDP from 2009-2010. Tell me, then, how the "Bush Era Tax Cuts" caused this problem? Revenue kept on growing! In Constant dollars, the Bush Era was an amazing period for revenues. The problem was a GOP Congress that liked to spend more than the Democratic Congress is replaced in 1995. And a GOP Congress with a GOP president is bad news because neither checks the other, and in a great feat, the Democrats sought to outspend the Republicans when they had Congress and a Democratic president. Almost half our deficit? Yeah. Our debt is $13 trillion? You're talking total taxes that amount to 25% of the GDP every year. I hate to break it to you, but not even Clinton thought that was a good idea. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 August 5, 2011 Quote Quote I'm sitting here wondering why more lefties haven't made comments. Guess these facts would get in the way of their normal insights Maybe it's YOUR facts that are wrong. BUSH'S 2008 deficit totaled $455 billion BUSH'S Obama's budget for 2009 involved a deficit of $482 billion. Since we're speaking of facts... Obama signed the 2009 budget, not Bush. The Dems held it over until after the inauguration. Both budgets were created by the Democratic House of Representatives.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 August 5, 2011 QuoteBUSH'S Congress's 2008 deficit totaled $455 billion BUSH'S Congress's budget for 2009 involved a deficit of $482 billion. Fixed it for you. And Note: OMB numbers shows the 2008 deficit at $458.6 billion. The OMB also shows the 2009 deficit at $1,412.7 billion deficit. Bush's PROPOSAL was for a $400 billion deficit (he wasn't a responsible-type guy). Also note - the 2009 Federal budget wasn't passed and signed until March, 2009 - more than halfway through the 2009 fiscal year. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 August 5, 2011 Quote http://www.creators.com/...e-s-the-outrage.html Thanks for the link. Here's another link from that article that presents a summary: Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures./ In no way am I endorsing Bush here. My point is the federal government has a massive spending problem, and it must stop. Taxing our way out of this isn't going to work. If anyone disagrees with what this is showing, please speak up, and provide links that can back up why you're disagreeing.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #21 August 5, 2011 Can someone find info, and post it, on the amount of money made by millionaires and billionaires?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #22 August 5, 2011 OK, the Bush era tax cuts PLUS an unfunded war or two.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #23 August 5, 2011 QuoteCan someone find info, and post it, on the amount of money made by millionaires and billionaires? It's millions and billions.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 August 5, 2011 QuoteCan someone find info, and post it, on the amount of money made by millionaires and billionaires? According to the IRS SOI tax stats, returns with taxable income of 1 million or more collectively had $623 billion in taxable income in 2009...12.8% of the total taxable income. They paid income taxes of $177.5 billion, or 20.5% of the total income tax collected.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 August 5, 2011 QuoteOK, the Bush era tax cuts PLUS an unfunded war or two.... Incorrect - they were funded via appropriations bills....just like the STILL-undeclared war "kinetic military action" in Libya.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
