Why does Obama need $1.4 Trillion? Didn’t he end Bush’s unfunded wars?

ctmom on December 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Indeed.

In FY 2004 (October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004), we were fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and our TOTAL (on-budget + off-budget) outlays were $2.29 Trillion.

In FY 2011, revenues were $2.30 Trillion, and we could have had a budget surplus if the 2010 Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President had passed a budget for FY 2011 and kept spending to the same $ amounts as the Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President did in the FY 2004 budget.

Instead, FY 2011 actual outlays were over 57% bigger than FY 2004 outlays… an increase of $1.31 Trillion to a total of $3.60 Trillion.

And that $1.31 Trillion Democrat increase in spending meant that instead of having a $0.01 Trillion surplus in FY 2011, we had a $1.30 Trillion deficit.

The problem is NOT revenues, which went UP after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.

The problem is spending.

Let’s start by cutting the over $1.3 Trillion that Democrats have added to spending.

Suggest a tax cut for the middle class. Tax rates the same for the >250K. Whopping tax raise for Buffet.

It’s not like O’bitumous has even the slightest interest in helping this country. He is trying to bankrupt it. The sooner we hit rock bottom, the sooner we can recover.

Let it burn. But feed the fire.

And STILL no Budget, and no heat on Harry Reid for failing one of the core costitutional duties of the Senate.

rayra on December 11, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Sad, but true. And remember that Joe Biden is President of the Senate. He, too, has failed to perform one of his core Costitutional duties.

In calendar year 2009, Democrats controlled significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and controlled the Presidency. Budgets cannot be filibustered. Democrats could have passed any budget that they wanted for Fiscal Year 2010.

Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2010.
Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2011.
Democrats failed to pass a budget for FY 2012.
And Democrats have YET to pass a budget, even as we are now in FY 2013!

In calendar year 2010, Democrats controlled significant majorities in both the House and Senate, and controlled the Presidency. Budgets cannot be filibustered. Democrats could have passed any budget that they wanted for Fiscal Year 2011.

Had Democrats passed a budget for FY 2011 that kept outlays (spending) to the same $ totals as Bush and the Republicans had in the FY 2004 buget just sevem years earlier, there would have been a SURPLUS in FY 2011!

It’s true.

Revenues in FY 2011 were $2.30 Trillion
Outlays in FY 2004 were $2.29 Trillion

Check the numbers yourself…

Budget numbers directly from the White House Office of Management and Budget

If Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi had limited FY 2011 spending to the same $2.29 Trillion that Bush and the Republicans produced in FY 2004, then FY 2011 would have had a surplus of $0.01 Trillion ($10 Billion).

A buget surplus. Even better than a balanced budget.

Instead, the Democrat majority spending in FY 2011 was up more than $1.31 Trillion over FY 2004, a spending increase of more than 57% from the Bush-Republican level of just seven years earlier, resulting in that hypothetical $0.01 Trillion surplus instead becoming a very real deficit of $1.30 Trillion in FY 2011.

What, exactly, did we gain from that $1.31 Trillion increase in spending?

What, exactly, did we gain from the spending increase from $2.29 Trillion in FY 2004 to $3.60 Trillion in FY 2011?

When Obama and the Democrats use the word “balanced”, it almost always followed by the word “approach”, and what it means to them is RAISING TAXES.

You won’t hear Obama and the Democrats use the word “balanced” followed by the word “budget”. They have no intention of undoing the massive spending increases that have occurred since they took majority control of the House and Senate in January 2007. They have no intention of balancing the budget.

Just more taxes and more spending.

=============================================

Total income tax share (percentage):

In 1986 (the 6th year of Ronald Reagan Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 54.69%

In 1989 (1st Year of George H. W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 55.78%

In 1993 (1st Year of Bill Clinton Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 59.24%

In 1997 (5th Year of Bill Clinton Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 63.20%

In 2001 (1st Year of George W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 64.89%

In 2005 (5th Year of George W. Bush Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 70.30%

In 2009 (1st Year of Barack Obama Presidency), the top 10% paid a Total Income Tax share of 70.47%

Check the IRS numbers yourself (start at cell F183 and go down the column).

=============================================

A “balanced approach” does not mean constantly shifting more and more of the tax burden onto 10% of our citizens.

A “balanced approach” would begin by cutting spending back to the levels of the FY 2004 budget that was passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President.

A “balanced approach” would make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, since revenues went UP each year for four straight years after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Raising tax rates now will LOWER revenue, not raise it. Higher tax rates will mean more people unemployed and less total income tax revenue collected.

It seems that extending the middle-class tax cuts under the false premise that expiring the tax cuts for the wealthy will fix anything is a smoke screen accomplishing exactly nothing.

If people want to have a society of dependence and social programs supporting our growing elderly population and poor, why not send them the bill?

xblade on December 11, 2012 at 9:00 PM

On top of it, all of these proposals that involve, passing ‘x’ this way, or splitting ‘x’ from ‘y,’ or passing ‘y’ but not ‘x’ in ‘z’ manner all with the aim to “make the Democrats own” their own stupid ideas are flawed coming out the gate. They all rely upon a media propaganda machine that has gone in the past four years from blatantly left-leaning to something that would make Baghdad Bob blush suddenly becoming honest enough to hold Democrats accountable for anything.

If that were possible, then every news network would have a running counter of the days since this nation’s government has passed a budget. If anybody were held accountable, then the multiple scandals surrounding Solyndra, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious would mean Reid and Pelosi would have given Obama the hard news about a certain impeachment Bill Timmons et. al. gave Nixon in August 1974. If the public were more concerned with Obama’s weak leadership and partisan stunts than with the uninterrupted flow of their government handouts, President-Elect Romney would still be basking in the glow of his twelve point, 400 electoral vote victory.

This isn’t the sort of crap that can be fixed with a bit of innovative leadership and deal-making even if Boehner did have such an ability in him. This is a poison deep within our system that won’t end until the fools are forced to face some hard truths about how the economy works. This isn’t about a stunt that determines who gets an upper hand among 535 legislators and a clusterfark of an executive branch. This is about 65 million fools nationwide that voted their nation into slavery because their minds are too preoccupied with free lunches, consequence-free fornication, and a divide and conquer mentality that allows the government to split Americans among the lines of race, gender, faith, and income. Hard lessons like these aren’t taught with quick legislative stunts. America will be incredibly lucky if it means only the 2010s are a lost decade….

Dealing with Fluking Slippery Snakes!!

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/dumb-stimulus-bill-spending/

1. Forest Service to Replace Windows in Visitor Center
Closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA) – $554,763

2. “Dance Draw” – Interactive Dance Software Development
(Charlotte, NC) – $762,372

3. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) – $1.9million

4. Town Replaces New Sidewalks With Newer Sidewalks
That Lead to Ditch (Boynton, OK) – $89,298

5. Scientist Attempts to Create Joke Machine (Evanston, IL) – $712,883

6. Jamming for Dollars (Atlanta, GA) – $762,372

7. DTV “Experts” Plug Boxes Into a Wall (Buffalo, NY) – $350,000

8. Museum With 44 Annual Visitors Gets Funding for Bug Storage (Raleigh, NC) -$253,123

9. Reducing Menopausal Hot Flashes Through Yoga (Winston-Salem, NC) – $294,958

10. Stimulus Funds Going to the Dogs (Ithaca, NY)505 – $296,385

These were just 10 that I enjoyed; for the full report and list of 100 such nonsensical uses of money, see the original reports:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/__EDIT%20Englewood%20Cliffs/StimulusPt1.pdf

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/__EDIT%20Englewood%20Cliffs/StimulusPt2.pdf

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

There are no “tax cuts”. Obama – in his mind – thinks keeping the Bush tax rates are a tax cut.
There are not. These are the rates everyone has been paying for almost 12 years.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

Again – this would be a tax hike on rates that have existed for almost 12 years.
Americans don’t understand economics. The democrats have lied about this for 60 years.
Even JFK knew that slashing rates would lead to a healthy economy. Obama wants higher rates
so that he can crow that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue.
Don’t give Obama anything. The Republicans will get the blame no matter what.

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

The Republicans have been saying it. The public now believes the democratic lies….
The Republicans should let the Bush tax rates expire so that everyone pays more.
I mean let’s all be patriotic!

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

BD57

Again – don’t “give” Obama anything…..
That way when everyone is paying more the Republicans can say for 6 months – “Where is the money?” – Sorry Mr. President – we don’t need to raise that debt limit. Let’s wait another 6 months for all that tax money to flow in. After all – you & the democrats said we need a “balanced approach”.

BD57

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

BD57

So basically, cave to the dems. Sorry, but no thank you. You don’t win by continuously surrendering, and debating on the dems terms. Number 4 is especially laughable. Either tax cuts stay the same for everyone, or they go up for everyone. If Obama is more concerned about class warfare and needlessly attacking the rich than protecting the middle class and the poor, make him and the democrats own that.

Our side has misplayed this so badly that there’s not much we can do other than give Obama his way re “The Rich” ….

Here’s where I think we are:

1) Pass the tax cuts for the 98% – nice & clean, don’t give Dems any chance to torpedo it.

2) Let the Bush cuts go away for the 2%. “We don’t think it’s a good idea, but Democrats do – we’ll give the President his way on this issue and we’ll see how it turns out.”

3) Start the argument: “Taxes are going up on the 2%; the Rich are now paying their fair share.” Keep saying it over & over & over again; give the Democrats the choice – agree (in which case we then say “but it’s not enough to balance the budget”) or disagree (in which case we say “Wait a minute … this is what you wanted and it’s not enough? What amount is their “fair share”?).

4) Continue the argument & make Democrats own it: “We’ve given you what you want on taxes but we still have these problems. Even if you Democrats all the rich people and took all their stuff, there still isn’t enough to pay your bills.”

Then we’ll find out what’s really important.

Obama’s new fiscal cliff offer: Instead of $1.6 trillion in new revenue, how about $1.4 trillion?

Boehner: DEAL!

belad on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

yup .. sounds good …. I was of the persuasion of giving Obama all the taxes
he wants … nothing on Debt ceiling … and no continuing resolutions on
the budget .. make the senate go on the record …

Rand Paul is easy on the eyes – just saying.

msmveritas on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Oh yeah he is

And STILL no Budget, and no heat on Harry Reid for failing one of the core costitutional duties of the Senate.

rayra on December 11, 2012 at 8:09 PM

yup .. however in Dingy Harry’s defense ya gotta give the guy a little time
come on .. it only been what 5 maybe 6 years …. cut him some slack
/s