Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

You never asked me what I thought.

I don't speak for other liberals, but I'm not "OK" with it at all. IMO we need to increase tax revenues far more than just a 4% increase on incomes over $400,000.

 

No, not at all! I got curious while reading a similar discussion so I decided to do the calculations myself. I went to the horses mouth, the Treasury Department's web site which allows on to check on annual deficits (annual increases in debt). Once I looked at the numbers it was obvious the CBO was using an accounting gimmick which only related to the debt held by the public being paid down, by using SS/MC funds not needed immediately and loaning that money to the general treasury by law, and by not counting that new debt. It is a phoney gimmick, effectively a fraud against the citizens not capable of checking on it themselves.[/quote]
Bush was president for 2/3 of FY2001, and gave about 40 billion in a tax refund.[/quote]1. FY 2001 belonged to Clinton as it was his budget. 2. Refunding 40 billion was not a net refund, but a refund only to those who over paid their taxes with withholding.

In fact, it would be hard to find someone stupid enough to assert you got your information from that individual.

 

Why would you look at the debt when you are analyzing the surplus? Deficits are a function of receipts and expenditures. As a self proclaimed economist, you should know that.

The $40 billion was a net refund, against the budget in 2001. It was passed by Bush and made retro-active that year.

Again, please cite the link to the US Treasury page that says there was a deficit in 2000 as you've claimed.

This is the 4th or 5th time now you've dodged this simple request.

 

You posted a bogus chart in 2005 dollars - percent change but you claimed it to be historical GDP growth for the USA. So fact is you were being deceptive or Ignorant take your pick but a fact none the less.
You sited a congressional budget office definition and then as usual you followed with your typical deceptive comment that “Clinton ran a surplus”. The absolute fact is that once it was adjusted it wasn’t a surplus at all just another 133 billion dollar deficit that the Clintons and the Media did everything they could to bury that adjustment knowing full well that the sheep still believe.

 

Now you're just lying. I made no claim but just posted data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

So what is "real GDP" to you after complained about the figures I posted in 2005 dollars?

Why do you keep dodging the question?

Yes, the CBO is the bi-partisan agency that tracks the budget. If you have a better source feel free to share it.

"Absolute fact"? LOL. Tell us, what "adjustment" are you referring to that you claim made the surplus into a $133 billion deficit.

Why are you dodging my questions?

Tell us what a government budget deficit is. Source please.

 

01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64 Total public debt when Bush took office.

01/21/2009 10,625,053,544,309.79 Total public debt when Obama took office.

02/08/2013 16,488,908,847,828.25 Total public debt now after 4 years and a month with Obama.

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

It took Bush 8 years to double the national debt, it only took Obama and the Democrats 4 to duplicate that feat. Both have buried your kids, grand-kids and even great grand-kids in a mountain of debt they can never dig out from under. My question to ya'all is when is it time to say "enough"?

 

I agree. Write your Tea Party of Grover reps and tell them to raise taxes.

 

No, not at all! I got curious while reading a similar discussion so I decided to do the calculations myself. I went to the horses mouth, the Treasury Department's web site which allows on to check on annual deficits (annual increases in debt). Once I looked at the numbers it was obvious the CBO was using an accounting gimmick which only related to the debt held by the public being paid down, by using SS/MC funds not needed immediately and loaning that money to the general treasury by law, and by not counting that new debt. It is a phoney gimmick, effectively a fraud against the citizens not capable of checking on it themselves.

1. FY 2001 belonged to Clinton as it was his budget. 2. Refunding 40 billion was not a net refund, but a refund only to those who over paid their taxes with withholding.

In fact, it would be hard to find someone stupid enough to assert you got your information from that individual.

 

We prefer to cut spending.

 

Tell your Dumbass Democrats to quit spending your grand kids money. Myself I really don't care, I have no children to pay ya'alls way.

Just curious you skimmed ove Obama and the Democrats raising debt more in 4 years than in 8 of Bush....why?

 

Good for you. We prefer to raise taxes. Now what?

 

They will never believe there is enough spending. When Obama raised the taxes he should have put them where they were before Bush reduced them. That is where the revenue is, across the baord.

 

The Obama government has cut spending, twice, for the first time in 60 years, and now spends proportionately less than some Reagan years.

If you're so concerned about the deficit, write your Tea Party of Grover reps and tell them to raise taxes. Tax revenues are proportionately the lowest in 60 years.

 

I'm all for trimming spending too. We are spending proportionately $250 billion a year more on the military. We should trim that back to 2000 proportionate levels. We don't need to be paying SS to the likes of Warren Buffet. Make SS means tested. Then make a single payor national health care system.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, please cite the link to the US Treasury page that says there was a deficit in 2000 as you've claimed.

This is the 5th or 6th time now you've dodged this simple request.

 

After they increased the national debt by 1/3rd? Sorry, I'm just not impressed by shiny objects like liberals are.

 

So you don't care that the debt has increased as long as you're paying lower taxes?

 

Actually we do. We should collect FICA on his income and give him benefits on the traditionally skewed curve.

They already are means testing. We are paying income tax on up to 85% of our benefits now.

Maybe, but not a government controlled single payer system.

For the 5th or 6th time I will answer you. I got it from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway .All you have to do is plug in the dates of the beginning FY and the end FY and all of the deficits are staring you in the face. Are you too ignorant to do that?

- - - Updated - - -

About 47% of our people don't care how much the debt is or how high taxes go since they don't pay federal income taxes.

 

Come in from the left field bleachers, I never said that. I said you need to tell your Dumbass Democrats to stop spending your grand kids futures or they'll visit your grave once a week to urinate on it.

 

You cited that page already. Again, there is nothing on that page that says anything about a deficit or surplus.

I thought when you claimed that "USTreasury site proves" that there was a deficit in 2000, there actually was a Treasury page that says that.

I should have known you were just making it up.

But here is a US Treasury page that actually does talk about deficits and surpluses:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

You can add up the figures for 2000 and see that the Govt took in $236 billion more in receipts than it expended in 2000. Which by definition (except maybe the right wing computer programmer's blog) is a surplus.

The other 53% don't care how much the debt is as long as they keep their low taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

No farther afield than your post about Obama and the debt in a thread in which we were discussing the Clinton surplus.

 

You cant raise taxes on the rich enough to balance the federal budget.

We have to have deep spending cuts.

 

No one pays less federal income tax than those who pay none. Before you raise income taxes on those paying taxes already, be sure to implement the tax rates before Bush cut them.

 

We should pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment and require administrations to reduce the TOTAL DEBT, NOT JUST THAT HELD BY THE PUBLIC, at least 5% a year after which money cannot be borrowed such that there is a total deficit when considering both on budget and off budget funds/debt.

 

<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>> The page you keep showing over looks the off budget debt, ergo it is not representative of the total national debt/deficit.

The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It

( Debt Held by the Public vs. Intragovernmental Holdings )
Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
02/08/2013 11,629,086,187,262.76 4,859,822,660,565.49 16,488,908,847,828.25

See information on the Debt Subject to the Limit.
Daily History Search Application

To find the total public debt outstanding on a specific day or days, simply select a single date or date range and click on the 'Find History' button.

The data on total public debt outstanding is available daily from 01/04/1993 through 02/08/2013. The debt held by the public versus intragovernmental holdings data is available:

Yearly (on a fiscal basis) from 09/30/1997 through 02/08/2013.
Monthly from 09/30/01 through 03/31/05
Daily from 03/31/05 through 02/08/2013


Enter Beginning Date
Month Day Year

Enter Ending Date (optional)
Month Day Year​

Enter the appropriate dates into the beginning and the end and all of the debt per year will pop up.

<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

 

You can, and quite easily.

We are spending proportionately less than Reagan did in some years. Why do we now need deep spending cuts?

Clinton raised taxes and got us to a surplus budget without ever cutting spending once. Why do we now need deep spending cuts?

 

I am using the exact link you provided. Tell you what, since you claim the problem is me not being smart enough to use the page, why don't you quote the exact language where it says there was a deficit in 2000 like you claim it says.

<<<Mod edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

That is because the page I cited to is for the surplus and deficit, just like it says, not the debt.