or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 9

post #321 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Here's the proof, for you and John Galt:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

Tonton, I politely asked you to provide credible references for your numerous assertions. You chose to quote from a campaign flyer. I'm quite familiar with it - I've quoted from it myself in this very forum. Some campaign proposals were good. Some were bad. None of them are established law.

The basis for my assertions is established tax law, for which I've provided copious references. Thus far the only basis for your assertions are pre-election promises - misleading at best, outright lies at worst, either way a fantasy not to be confused with established law.

Obama's Democrats have had total majority control of the legislature for nearly two years now, enjoying a supermajority for most of it. Nothing stood in the way of implementing any or all of his campaign promises. Why didn't they?

Speaking of fantasies,

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

... First you try to counter by misrepresenting my question as a conspiracy then you ask for something I've already provided!

I understand your conspiracy theory was "fantasy". I don't object to posting fantasies on a public forum, but you invite ridicule by doing so. No harm done.

The subject of this thread is the looming threat of wildly increasing taxes. It appears that you're not willing to address that problem, since you continue to pursue the thread-drifting subject of blame. I suggested you address that in another thread, but you appear to be obsessed with avoiding this one's subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please provide any credibility for yourself after that last statement.

Credibility isn't provided, it's earned, and constantly attempting to divert the subject of this thread merely serves to discredit yourself.

I challenged both you and tonton to provide credible references for your assertions. I'm still waiting.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #322 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Tonton, I politely asked you to provide credible references for your numerous assertions. You chose to quote from a campaign flyer. I'm quite familiar with it - I've quoted from it myself in this very forum. Some campaign proposals were good. Some were bad. None of them are established law.

The basis for my assertions is established tax law, for which I've provided copious references. Thus far the only basis for your assertions are pre-election promises - misleading at best, outright lies at worst, either way a fantasy not to be confused with established law.

Obama's Democrats have had total majority control of the legislature for nearly two years now, enjoying a supermajority for most of it. Nothing stood in the way of implementing any or all of his campaign promises. Why didn't they?

Speaking of fantasies,



I understand your conspiracy theory was "fantasy". I don't object to posting fantasies on a public forum, but you invite ridicule by doing so. No harm done.

The subject of this thread is the looming threat of wildly increasing taxes. It appears that you're not willing to address that problem, since you continue to pursue the thread-drifting subject of blame. I suggested you address that in another thread, but you appear to be obsessed with avoiding this one's subject.



Credibility isn't provided, it's earned, and constantly attempting to divert the subject of this thread merely serves to discredit yourself.

I challenged both you and tonton to provide credible references for your assertions. I'm still waiting.

My assertion was backed by history. If you can't understand that then you won't comprehend any other point of view and there's no help for you. I've already stated I posted it here because it fit and I didn't want to bump a thread I found silly. I don't agree that we shouldn't look at blame. I think when voting Republican in the next election we should remember who was in charge when this started ( and do we really want to go running right back to them? ). I know you don't want to think about that but with most supporters of the right it's to everything spin, spin, spin. I can understand because that one point ( about them being in charge ( totally for 6 out of 8 years ) when this happened is pretty damning ).

Face it. You can't argue with something that's already happened.

And John really how do I invite ridicule by mentioning my fantasy?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #323 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Nothing stood in the way of implementing any or all of his campaign promises. Why didn't they?

Aside from the war and security issue, which I oppose Obama strongly regarding, two things stood in the way, actually. One was complete and stubborn Republican partisanship on any Obama proposals, health care, for instance, and the other is Obama's misguided attempt at working with Republicans despite this instead of fighting for his principles.

To say "nothing stood in the way" when you have constant obstruction is an obvious ignorance of the facts.


An example of the kind of obstruction I'm talking about.


Has nothing stood in the way of Obama's judicial appointments as well? I mean it's a Democratic majority, right?

Now have a look at the small business bill, and explain why Republicans are blocking it when it doesn't add a penny to the deficit. Partisanship. Obstruction. Typical.

"Nothing stood in the way."
post #324 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Now have a look at the small business bill, and explain why Republicans are blocking it when it doesn't add a penny to the deficit. Partisanship. Obstruction. Typical.:

tonton: Have you really read the language of this "small business bill" that Obama is foolishly advocating? Like the Democrat-sponsored effort that precipitated this financial crisis, i.e., the Democrat measure that forced banks to make risky home loans to unqualified borrowers, this "small business bill" does the same thing - It would also provide $30 billion to banks with less than $10 billion in assets to encourage lending to risky small businesses. The program might induce banks to make risky loans; more to the point, the effort is hardly "paid for" as Obama lies about... the program would simply balloon bank debt and banks themselves would be on the hook once the initial federal funds are depleted.

I am so glad that Republicans - and some Democrats - are opposed to this foolish Obama plan; they are no doubt fully attentive to the hundreds of small businesses and banks that are also opposed to it. Blocking it is paramount! Shove it back in Obama's face is hardly obstructionism; it is patriotic! And with Mr. Unpopular foolishly proposing $50 billion more in infrastructure spending - money that we do not have - it is critical for all Americans to be against this deficit spending in any measure...
post #325 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My assertion was backed by history. If you can't understand that then you won't comprehend any other point of view and there's ...

Sources please. I'm still waiting.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #326 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

To say "nothing stood in the way" when you have constant obstruction is an obvious ignorance of the facts.


An example of the kind of obstruction I'm talking about.

Thank you for the link tonton. While you're attempting to divert the question before you, I'm still waiting for credible references proving your assertions regarding the expectation of lower taxes next year are valid.

If you're going to reference Huffpo then I'll reference Rush Limbaugh For the purposes of this discussion I won't even reference Fox News. I respect Cato, The Heritage Foundation, National Review, and many other respected institutions critical of nearly everything BHO is doing, but notice that I have not provided them as sources for the purposes of this discussion. Instead, I have given you the Congressional Budget Office, the White House, BHO's campaign literature, the IRS and The Tax Foundation. I even threw you a bone with the New York Times.

In the meantime, for every Huffpo I'll raise you a Drudge.

Also, I reiterate that at present, Republicans are completely powerless to block any Democrat agenda. The problem Obama has with his judicial appointments is that they're perceived by Ds as well as Rs as being unfit for the bench. The confirmation process is working exactly as it should.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #327 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Sources please. I'm still waiting.

Sources for what? You can ask this non sequitur as much as you want but the truth is Republicans were totally in charge for 6 years. They held a position where they managed the country. And it fell into this major economic downturn. This was all before Obama. So I ask you what were they doing in that job if they aren't responsible? And why would anyone want them back after that? This is very important to look at before voting so it's very relevant.



So now I'm waiting.

PS. I'm guessing from the way you answered both of our questions ( tonton and myself ) you like to dodge the tough questions with nonsensical answers.

That won't help your arguments.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #328 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Also, I reiterate that at present, Republicans are completely powerless to block any Democrat agenda.

This is a false statement assuming that Democrats are playing the partisan game as well as Republicans. Try again.
post #329 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sources for what? You can ask this non sequitur as much as you want but the truth is Republicans were totally in charge for 6 years. ...

Documented history differs from your aspirational recollection of it. If by "totally in charge" you mean the chief executive and a majority in both houses of Congress, Republicans were "totally in charge" for the 108th and 109th, with responsibility for fiscal years 2004 - 2006. Three years, not six. What do those years have in common? Progressively decreasing deficits measured in absolute dollars as well as a percent of GDP. What else do they have in common? A significantly lower tax burden than will exist next year.

Congress is "in charge" of the Federal budget, not the President. Every year that Republicans have been "in charge" of Congress there has been either a budget surplus (during Clinton) or a progressively decreasing deficit (during GWB). Most recently, the Republican Congress inherited a Democrat deficit of $400 billion in 2004 and reduced it to about $150 billion by 2007.

During none of those years did Republicans hold a supermajority. Including their lapdog "independents" who caucus with them, the Ds held a supermajority beginning in 2007, well before BHO's ascension to the throne. Since the Ds have been "in charge", the deficit has metastasized tenfold, to an insane $1,500 billion. It is forecast to remain about the same for 2011.

Guess what happened in every year the Rs were not "in charge"? Yes... progressively increasing deficits. When Ds gained a supermajority, their insane spending binge sent their progressively increasing deficits into hyperspace.

Review: Bush's Republican Congress cut the deficit in half, with reduced tax rates. Obama's Democrats exploded it by an order of magnitude, notwithstanding the impending "largest tax hike in history."

Who "wrecked" this country? You're the one obsessed with blame, so I'll leave it to you to determine where it lies. What's more important is who appears hell-bent upon inflicting even more devastation.

---

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmhearings/108.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmhearings/109.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072304101.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...462433508.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_d...tes_Congresses
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut...stitution.html
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #330 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is a false statement assuming that Democrats are playing the partisan game as well as Republicans. Try again.

No, Ds are much better at partisan politics. Much more vicious. Rs tend to roll over and die at the first sight of blood.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #331 of 683
That's where you're so fucking wrong. If the D's were ANY good at partisan politics, we wouldn't be in this mess. The dumbass R's wouldn't be able to control the whole false political narrative in this country with manufactured bullshit stories (the mosque for example) and the classic god, guns, and gays.

What did we as a country not notice throughout all this mosque nonsense? How about the R's denying healthcare for the 9/11 heroes who rushed in with no concern to their own lives and safety to try to find survivors in the rubble? Oh yes, those flagwaving "patriotic" motherfuckers voted down healthcare for some of our countries greatest heroes. Sickening. And all swept under the rug in a fervor of Islamophobia.

THE GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT IN SITTING!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #332 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Documented history differs from your aspirational recollection of it. If by "totally in charge" you mean the chief executive and a majority in both houses of Congress, Republicans were "totally in charge" for the 108th and 109th, with responsibility for fiscal years 2004 - 2006. Three years, not six. What do those years have in common? Progressively decreasing deficits measured in absolute dollars as well as a percent of GDP. What else do they have in common? A significantly lower tax burden than will exist next year.

Congress is "in charge" of the Federal budget, not the President. Every year that Republicans have been "in charge" of Congress there has been either a budget surplus (during Clinton) or a progressively decreasing deficit (during GWB). Most recently, the Republican Congress inherited a Democrat deficit of $400 billion in 2004 and reduced it to about $150 billion by 2007.

During none of those years did Republicans hold a supermajority. Including their lapdog "independents" who caucus with them, the Ds held a supermajority beginning in 2007, well before BHO's ascension to the throne. Since the Ds have been "in charge", the deficit has metastasized tenfold, to an insane $1,500 billion. It is forecast to remain about the same for 2011.

Guess what happened in every year the Rs were not "in charge"? Yes... progressively increasing deficits. When Ds gained a supermajority, their insane spending binge sent their progressively increasing deficits into hyperspace.

Review: Bush's Republican Congress cut the deficit in half, with reduced tax rates. Obama's Democrats exploded it by an order of magnitude, notwithstanding the impending "largest tax hike in history."

Who "wrecked" this country? You're the one obsessed with blame, so I'll leave it to you to determine where it lies. What's more important is who appears hell-bent upon inflicting even more devastation.

---

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmhearings/108.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmhearings/109.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072304101.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...462433508.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_d...tes_Congresses
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut...stitution.html

Nice spin john but they had more control for much longer period ( even if the deciding years were only 3 that's still a year longer and they started with a surplus from the last time to boot a much better shake than Obama got ). Things still went south while they were still more in control ( they still had the Whitehouse and most of the government ). The end result was what happens when you give them the reins. Also this was a huge downturn what did they try to do about it? Even a fictional character from a bad book ( my dad liked Rand me not so much ) can't get around that. What you've said seems to make it look the other way but really doesn't. Nice try. Tell me john what was the deficit after Bush left office compared to when he started? Anoither way of looking at things. The bottom line
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #333 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Tell me john what was the deficit after Bush left office compared to when he started?

Why don't you tell us. NOTE: This is a litmus test of your honesty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #334 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why don't you tell us. NOTE: This is a litmus test of your honesty.

Ok. I'll bite. Here's something I found without too much looking. An article from March of last year so right after he left. Complete with graph. It's even a little anti Obama for you to be fair.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/ The deficit is huge under Obama as well. Can you prove to me it would look any different under Bush if he'd gotten a 3rd term?

Here's what some think : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_387121.html

Quote:
All of which may be vital, say budget analysts say. But the hysteria over the deficit misses a fundamental point: the country's fiscal problems largely aren't due to Obama but rather his predecessor.

And I don't really give a shit if some don't like the Huffington post. What they've printed is fact.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #335 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok. I'll bite. Here's something I found without too much looking. An article from March of last year so right after he left. Complete with graph.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

Excellent. Kudos! So you're willing to accept this chart as reliable representation of the deficits in recent years?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The deficit is huge under Obama as well. Can you prove to me it would look any different under Bush if he'd gotten a 3rd term?

Of course no one can prove such a thing, so it's silly thing to even argue. It only has the appearance of begin something useful to discuss or speculate on. What we can do is look at what is happening and what has happened and who has been in charge of the budget at those times, and use that information to correlate and speculate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #336 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Excellent. Kudos! So you're willing to accept this chart as reliable representation of the deficits in recent years?

Can't you fucking wait unbtil someone is done?

Now will you answer my question in the Darwin thread?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #337 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Can't you fucking wait unbtil someone is done?

Touchy. I can't help it if you posted before you were done.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now will you answer my question in the Darwin thread?

I did reply to your post there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #338 of 683
OK. Now back to this chart that jimmac has presented us with:



I wonder if anyone has a similar chart that also shows which party was controlling the Senate and the House for each of those budget years? That would be helpful in illustrating the simplistic analysis that pins the budget deficits only on who is president.

While it would be better on a chart, here's the info:

1999-2000: Republicans (???, $230B surplus)
2001-2002: Senate: D's, House: R's (approx. $100B surplus, approx. $100B deficit)
2003-2004: Republicans ($400B deficit, $400B deficit)
2005-2006: Republicans (approx. $300B deficit, approx. $200B deficit)
2007-2008: Democrats (approx. $100B deficit, $400B deficit)
2009-2010: Democrats (approx. $1.8T deficit, approx. $1.5T deficit)

What's not clear to me is what the lag from getting into office and actually having control of the budget is. For example the D's took over control in 2007 (elected in 2006, began serving in 2007) but was the 2007 budget already set in motion at that point?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #339 of 683
So this is a good idea. Sorta.

Obama to back more business tax breaks

The idea is good. He's starting to "get it" (maybe.) But once again it reeks of the WH trying to manage and control the economy. That part is bad. The better solution would be to make this a permanent tax break. Let's take closer look:

Quote:
President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of showing action on the economy ahead of the November elections.

Quote:
Amid an uptick in unemployment to 9.6 percent, and polls showing that the November election could be dismal for Democrats, Obama has promised to propose new steps to stimulate the economy. In addition to the business investment tax breaks, he will also call for a $50 billion infrastructure investment and a permanent expansion of research and development tax credits for companies.

OK. So it's a desperation shot, from half court, at the buzzer. We get it.


Quote:
"The White House is missing the big picture. None of its plans address the two big problems that are hurting our economy: excessive government spending, and the uncertainty that their policies....are creating for small businesses," House Minority Leader John Boehner said.

The uncertainty is the biggest problem, but yeah, he's right.


Quote:
With the public growing increasingly concerned about the mounting federal deficit, the White House has been careful to avoid labeling their proposals as a stimulus program, hoping to avoid drawing comparisons to the massive $814 billion stimulus Obama signed last year.

Well, that and the the fact that the "stimulus" didn't stimulate anything except the deficit.


Quote:
Even if legislators could pass some of the proposals in the short window between their return to Capitol Hill in mid-September and the elections, it's unlikely the efforts would significantly stimulate the economy by November.

As always, it's important to be thinking about the long-term...like an election that's 57 days away.


Quote:
The official estimated the ultimate cost to taxpayers over 10 years would be $30 billion, with most of the money lost in tax revenue being recouped as the economy strengthens.

Cue tonton to disparage Obama's sudden conversion to supply-side economics.


The biggest problem with this is that it is still too short-sighted. It is also transparently timed for Obama's re-election bid. From an economic perspective what it does is helps to accelerate some capital investment that might be already tee'd up and pull it into 2011. But then you're likely to see a drop off again in 2012 (and beyond) unless this is extended or made permanent. Think Cash for Clunkers or the house buying credit only for capital investments. This has the benefit over those other programs of being at least targeted to the right things for the longer-term (i.e., capital investment) and for a longer period (1 year), even if it is still more short-sighted than we'd like to see. The other problem is that while we might see the drop off in capital investment happen (a la the drop in car and house sales with the other programs) the effects of dropping capital investment are not usually felt for further down the road (2-5 years.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #340 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


What's not clear to me is what the lag from getting into office and actually having control of the budget is. For example the D's took over control in 2007 (elected in 2006, began serving in 2007) but was the 2007 budget already set in motion at that point?

Budgets last from September 1 to Aug 31
Bush's budget ended Sept 1, 2009
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #341 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Budgets last from September 1 to Aug 31
Bush's budget ended Sept 1, 2009

So a Congress that was elected in 2006, took power in in 2007, wouldn't really control the budget until the following fiscal year (September 2007 to August 2008). That's kinda what I thought. Thanks.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #342 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/ The deficit is huge under Obama as well.

That picture clearly shows what I've been saying all along jim. The deficit became worse each and every year that the Ds were in "total control" of Congress.

I can't make you read jim, but I've made repeated and patient attempts to make that point abundantly clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Can you prove to me it would look any different under Bush if he'd gotten a 3rd term?

You're asking me to prove that outcome of some future event? Of course not, that's logically impossible. However, based upon the most recent 50 years of history, for which I provided copious documentation, I would speculate that continued Democrat control of Congress will result in ever increasing deficits. I would also speculate, based upon recent history, that complete Democrat control of Congress and the executive will result in insanely increasing deficits. I would further speculate, based upon the grand total of nine years of the last 50 in which Republicans were in "total control" of Congress, that a Congress dominated by Rs is likely to result in fiscal sanity, restoring a trend toward a balanced budget. This outcome was made possible in an economic environment of tax relief and fiscal restraint, an environment that has resulted in higher Treasury revenue every time it's been tried.

Quite the opposite environment will prevail next year; I believe that's the point of this thread.

Historically, who's in the White House is of little consequence when it comes to "wrecking the country". Having ample experience with tyrants, the Founders' wisdom ensured a President's authority is extremely limited.

A unified and determined Congress, such as we now have, is fully capable of tyranny. Congress can be restrained by the President (within limits) or by the judiciary, which takes time. Fortunately, elections occur every once in a while too.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #343 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Having ample experience with tyrants, the Founders' wisdom ensured a President's authority is extremely limited.

This is true but, sadly, the presidency has increasingly gained more and more power over time.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #344 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I wonder if anyone has a similar chart that also shows which party was controlling the Senate and the House for each of those budget years?

You might find this instructive MJ - I referenced it in a previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_d...tes_Congresses

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What's not clear to me is what the lag from getting into office and actually having control of the budget is. For example the D's took over control in 2007 (elected in 2006, began serving in 2007) but was the 2007 budget already set in motion at that point?

The US fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30. In January of each year, the President requests an annual budget from Congress for the following fiscal year.

The FY 2007 budget (containing the lowest deficit in recent memory) was the last one a Republican Congress presented to President Bush.

The chart jimmac so graciously provided (thanks again jim!) illustrates what's happened since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_...ng_Act_of_1921
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #345 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This is true but, sadly, the presidency has increasingly gained more and more power over time.

Not Constitutionally, certainly not. What's disturbing is the trend of using "executive orders" to unilaterally do whatever he wants, as well as the apparent expansion of his position as CIC of the military to do whatever he wants with it. I understand the occasional need for covert military action, but I find large-scale military actions without specific Congressional approval disturbing. I certainly think GWB overstepped reasonable bounds in that area.

Bush could have made this a lot more acceptable with more open communication regarding the reason for his prolonged "war on terror". I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but one of the prerequisites of leadership is to continually, unceasingly, communicate through all available channels the necessity and justification for whatever unpopular activity he may be responsible for. I think Bush failed miserably in this area, and contributed to the public ire that has brought us to this dismal junction of hope and change.

It's also disturbing that certain members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for legislation they knew was unpopular, unconstitutional or simply ill-conceived, on advice the Presidency was at risk if they shot down his health care takeover plan. Disgusting.

But that's another subject... time to hit the submit button.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #346 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Not Constitutionally, certainly not.

How quaint.

No, not constitutionally. But then I don't think the constitution appears to be a real problem for anyone in Washington these days, executive or legislative (and even judicial sometimes.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

What's disturbing is the trend of using "executive orders" to unilaterally do whatever he wants, as well as the apparent expansion of his position as CIC of the military to do whatever he wants with it.

Agreed. Not just Obama mind you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I understand the occasional need for covert military action, but I find large-scale military actions without specific Congressional approval disturbing. I certainly think GWB overstepped reasonable bounds in that area.

Yes it is and yes he did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It's also disturbing that certain members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for legislation they knew was unpopular, unconstitutional or simply ill-conceived, on advice the Presidency was at risk if they shot down his health care takeover plan. Disgusting.

Yep. It's world gone mad.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #347 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

... But then I don't think the constitution appears to be a real problem for anyone in Washington these days, executive or legislative (and even judicial sometimes.)

ESPECIALLY the judiciary! That's why judicial appointments are so critical (and why I'm grateful for the drawn-out process now prevalent). IMO it's the single most defining issue when deciding who's President. He can only create so much havoc while in office, but judicial appointments have decades-long effects.

Remember when a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi about her constitutional authority for the health care bill? Her response: "oh, come on!"
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #348 of 683
Based on Wormhole's clarification of budget year responsibility we can further clarify as follows:

Fiscal Year: surplus/deficit (party controlling Congress for that FY)

2000: $240B (R)
2001: $100B (R)
2002: -$100B (Senate: D, House: R)
2003: -$400B (Senate: D, House: R)
2004: -$400B (R)
2005: -$300B (R)
2006: -$200B (R)
2007: -$100B (R)
2008: -$400B (D)
2009: -$1.2T (D)
2010: -$1.3T (D)
2011: -$1.0T* (D)
2012: -$700B* (TBD)

*Projected

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #349 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Based on Wormhole's clarification of budget year responsibility we can further clarify as follows:

Fiscal Year: surplus/deficit (party controlling Congress for that FY)

2000: $240B (R)
2001: $100B (R)
2002: -$100B (Senate: D, House: R)
2003: -$400B (Senate: D, House: R)
2004: -$400B (R)
2005: -$300B (R)
2006: -$200B (R)
2007: -$100B (R)
2008: -$1.2T (D)
2009: -$1.8T (D)
2010: -$1.5T (D)
2011: -$900B* (D)
2012: -$700B* (?)

*Projected

By the way, I'm sure you'll agree projections are pretty worthless. GWB's 2007 budget projections were for the deficit to be about 1% of GDP by this year. Of course then the Ds came in and swept all that away.

Similarly, Clinton's budget forecast was for $300 billion in deficits forever. Then the Rs came in. After they swept Congress in 1994 they projected a balanced budget by 2002. The surplus appeared years earlier, and in much larger numbers, than expected.

Back to the present. BHO's budget forecast is for a deficit of about one million million dollars (no I didn't stutter) next year, and $700 billion by 2014, after which it rises again. Sound familiar?

Draw your own conclusions.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #350 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

By the way, I'm sure you'll agree projections are pretty worthless.

Agreed. I especially like the Medicare/Medicaid projections from when it started and the reality we now have. This doesn't bode well for Obamacare.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #351 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Agreed. I especially like the Medicare/Medicaid projections from when it started and the reality we now have. This doesn't bode well for Obamacare.

Quick aside. Last year, like many of his accomplices, my (D) Representative had a "town hall" meeting in which he confronted a couple hundred of his angry constituents, including me (who got right up in his clueless face BTW). The House had already passed its version of Obamacare, as well as cap-and-tax, and the crowd basically wanted his head on a stick.

Anyway, while defending his position on Obamacare, he regurgitated the oft-quoted line that the bill was "defict neutral".

The interesting part was not that this remark was met with uproarious laughter, but that he seemed genuinely surprised by it.

I've been to Washington. I didn't go through a time warp to get there, but it seems these guys might as well be on Mars.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #352 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Quick aside. Last year, like many of his accomplices, my (D) Representative had a "town hall" meeting in which he confronted a couple hundred of his angry constituents, including me (who got right up in his clueless face BTW). The House had already passed its version of Obamacare, as well as cap-and-tax, and the crowd basically wanted his head on a stick.

Anyway, while defending his position on Obamacare, he regurgitated the oft-quoted line that the bill was "defict neutral".

I recall attending one of the Town Hall meetings just prior to ObamaCare passage - our local House Representative (a Democrat) deflected the issue by refusing to take questions on ObamaCare - even though he was one of the Democrats that voted for it. Democracy? I don't think so...
post #353 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

- our local House Representative (a Democrat) deflected the issue by refusing to take questions on ObamaCare - even though he was one of the Democrats that voted for it. Democracy? I don't think so...

My future former Rep began the meeting by apologizing for arriving two hours late, but reassured us he would stay as long as he needed, "past midnight if necessary", until everyone had a chance to be heard.

He quit in less than an hour.

A new record for the shortest time ever taken for a politician to break a promise!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #354 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

That picture clearly shows what I've been saying all along jim. The deficit became worse each and every year that the Ds were in "total control" of Congress.

I can't make you read jim, but I've made repeated and patient attempts to make that point abundantly clear.



You're asking me to prove that outcome of some future event? Of course not, that's logically impossible. However, based upon the most recent 50 years of history, for which I provided copious documentation, I would speculate that continued Democrat control of Congress will result in ever increasing deficits. I would also speculate, based upon recent history, that complete Democrat control of Congress and the executive will result in insanely increasing deficits. I would further speculate, based upon the grand total of nine years of the last 50 in which Republicans were in "total control" of Congress, that a Congress dominated by Rs is likely to result in fiscal sanity, restoring a trend toward a balanced budget. This outcome was made possible in an economic environment of tax relief and fiscal restraint, an environment that has resulted in higher Treasury revenue every time it's been tried.

Quite the opposite environment will prevail next year; I believe that's the point of this thread.

Historically, who's in the White House is of little consequence when it comes to "wrecking the country". Having ample experience with tyrants, the Founders' wisdom ensured a President's authority is extremely limited.

A unified and determined Congress, such as we now have, is fully capable of tyranny. Congress can be restrained by the President (within limits) or by the judiciary, which takes time. Fortunately, elections occur every once in a while too.

Quote:
You're asking me to prove that outcome of some future event?

I was asking if Bush had gotten a 3rd term ( impossible I know but you can speculate ) that's in the past or where we are now! You really aren't reading what I'm saying are you?

Quote:
Historically, who's in the White House is of little consequence when it comes to "wrecking the country". Having ample experience with tyrants, the Founders' wisdom ensured a President's authority is extremely limited.

That's an opinion but as you said " They're welcome ".

The rest doesn't change a thing. So when the republicans take the house ( and they probably will ) and we don't see any change corresponding to that what will you say then? I tend to agree with Paul krugman's perspective on all of this. I watched him give a lecture early in 09' and so far everything he said is coming true. Sad but true. There is no quick fix for this corner we've painted ourselves into. It will take time and lots of it. No magic bullet be it Democrat or Republican. Why anyone expected this to be fixed over night is beyond me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #355 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Touchy. I can't help it if you posted before you were done.




I did reply to your post there.

No you did not. You basically said " Why does it matter ". Which doesn't tell me your take on how we came to be. And I don't believe you don't have an opinion.

Until you answer I'm not answering any of your questions and will remind you of this at every opportunity ( like when you want an answer from me ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #356 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No you did not. You basically said " Why does it matter ".

Which is a reply.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which doesn't tell me your take on how we came to be.

Which isn't relevant to that discussion. But we'll leave that to that thread, won't we.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I don't believe you don't have an opinion.

Good for you. And you're even right, I do have one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Until you answer I'm not answering any of your questions and will remind you of this at every opportunity ( like when you want an answer from me ).

It's like a little kid who says "I'm gonna hold my breath until you do what I want!!!"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #357 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I tend to agree with Paul krugman's perspective on all of this.

Of course you do. And it shows us your capacity for serious, thoughtful analysis and logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I watched him give a lecture early in 09' and so far everything he said is coming true.

And all of his prescriptions are making it worse. Sad but true.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #358 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Which is a reply.




Which isn't relevant to that discussion. But we'll leave that to that thread, won't we.




Good for you. And you're even right, I do have one.




It's like a little kid who says "I'm gonna hold my breath until you do what I want!!!"

Oh! Are you talking about when you didn't/couldn't answer my question? Could it be that it might cause difficulty in your conversations about such matters? If you can't answer the question why post in that thread? Why Ask tonton questions about what he thinks and his take on evolution?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #359 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh! Are you talking about when you didn't/couldn't answer my question?

Wouldn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Could it be that it might cause difficulty in your conversations about such matters?

Only with people who are concerned with such irrelevancies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you can't answer the question why post in that thread?

Won't, not can't. Learn the difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why Ask tonton questions about what he thinks and his take on evolution?

I was asking what Evolution was. Not his opinion. Not his beliefs. He may share those if he likes, but that's not the discussion.

Now are you going to derail this thread with your complaints about what's happening in another thread?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #360 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

... So when the republicans take the house ( and they probably will ) and we don't see any change corresponding to that what will you say then?

The house? Forget it. Nothing will change. The Senate routinely takes House versions of spending bills and shreds them in reconciliation. If all else fails the Senate can threaten to invoke the nuclear option. I wouldn't put it past these idiots.

Rs may indeed take the House this November. Once these unfortunate realities of Congressional rules become evident, their victory celebration will end.
To effectively implement their proposals Rs need a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate - a complete reversal of Congress's 2007 composition. I don't know if they've ever experienced that, but if such a happy event were to occur, BHO is likely to veto anything Congress proposes (such as repeal of his health insurance mandate, for instance). While their opposite parties ruled Congress, both Clinton and Reagan vetoed just about everything that crossed their desks.
Another D President might be more interested in compromise - faced with plummeting approval poll results, even Clinton saw the light, but BHO appears to be completely aloof. I think that has a lot of Ds wondering what was so bad about Hillary

To override a veto, Rs need a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate (of those present and voting). That's unlikely. A Senate supermajority is a long shot, but within the realm of possibility in a few years given the unprecedented degree of voter discontent and the unlikelihood of any significant economic recovery within that time.

To expand upon your question though: IF the Rs were to hold veto-proof majorities and they don't raise this sinking ship...?

Then I'd say we're well and truly f*cked!

Quote:
There is no quick fix for this corner we've painted ourselves into. It will take time and lots of it.

Agreed, but history has shown us paths to prosperity as well as ruin. A long road toward prosperity beats a short one to disaster. We're on the short one.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"