Let’s assumes we have reached the debt limit and Obama uses the ploy of stopping Social Security benefits while continuing to collect FICA taxes. This action of not spending taxes on the benefits they designed for would end up increasing the size of the trust and thus the debt in violation of the debt ceiling limit. Obama could exceed the limit of debt by the act of not spending.

I enjoy a good irony.

The president’s insistence that Washington doesn’t have a spending problem…

…if you look up “DUMB FLUKE” in the dictionary…how long… before they just have JugEars picture?

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

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 again 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 having a budget for FY 2013 and limiting spending amounts to what they were when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency.

The problem with VAT is that it taxes the same good multiple times.

And because of that, it adds considerably to the administrative and
compliance costs to all levels of production than that of a simple retail sales tax collected only at the final exchange of goods and services with the consumer.

That’s a lot of taxation just to make the deadbeats, moochers, and other parasites finally contribute something to society. Far better to do it the bitter old-fashioned way and pare back on out-of-control spending and entitlement programs.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Oh yeah. I’d forgotten that bit. Back to the Fair Tax for me, then. Forget I ever posted. :)

A VAT is imposed on the purchase of every good that is not food, correct? How best to get the leeches to fork over some of their money to the government? Right. Tax their purchases.

totherightofthem on January 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The problem with VAT is that it taxes the same good multiple times.

First you have the VAT on raw material. Then the VAT on the processed material. Then the VAT on the component that comes out of the factory. Then the VAT on the completed product. And finally the VAT levied directly on the consumer.

That’s a lot of taxation just to make the deadbeats, moochers, and other parasites finally contribute something to society. Far better to do it the bitter old-fashioned way and pare back on out-of-control spending and entitlement programs.

Why hasn’t anyone brought up the Billions spent daily on fraud, waste, abuse, and redundant bureaucracies…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 8, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Because that’s obviously RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!

I’m not sure we can survive four more years. Half the country reminds me of the movie “Idiocracy”.

kam582 on January 8, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I get depressed when I think about the fact the first four aren’t done yet.

“At one point several weeks ago,” Mr. Boehner says, “the president said to me, ‘We don’t have a spending problem.

excerpt: Steven Moore article

.
If someone’s goal is the bankrupting of America and the destruction of the republic – spending is indeed not the problem, but the solution.

Rebar on January 8, 2013 at 1:30 PM

.
BINGO . . . that’s all that needed saying, close the thread.

Yeah. It seems he doesn’t have any problems spending other people’s money.

I could not agree more. I saw this during my career, and have a couple of relatives that want my hard earned money so they never have to work a day in their lives. I can’t believe that Obama wants more of what little money I have so he can give it to deadbeats.

kam582 on January 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Yeah. I wake up every morning and go to work so that I can pay for myself and my life. My friends / family sleep in all day, party all night, and still get a per centage of MY pay check to live off, even though they did not to a per centage of MY work.

These are people I would NEVER give a dime to, not people that “need a hand up” or “through no fault of their own… blah blah” Through 100% fault of their own, these choose to live off others, and I’m forced to let them. So for every week I work, I spend the first 2 days workings to support them, and then get the last 3 days for myself. Hardly seems fair.

MSNBC is obviously referring to the “rich” not paying their “fair share” but in all fairness “spending in the tax code” probably also includes idiotic crony-capitalist endeavors such as “wind energy” tax credits, which should be eliminated. So some real “spending in the tax code” is indeed a problem.

visions on January 8, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Its a nonsensical phrase. So is “tax credits.” A tax is a law that government imposes that takes money from someone.

They’re talking about “deductions and exemptions” when they say “spending in the tax code” but they act like it’s normal spending. Congress set a high tax rate, then wrote in ways to get most people’s actual tax rate down to something managable. It doesn’t cost them ANYTHING, they’re just taking less of our money then they feel they good.

And tax credits are just hand outs (like welfare) from the government to people or businesses. The word ‘tax’ is misleading, since there is no taxing involved, just giving.

Second Look at Rick Perry

http://nation.foxnews.com/texas/2013/01/08/texas-shows-obama

gophergirl on January 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

.
It will have to be a Woman the Rs send up to face the Shillary 2016.
Don’t even think about running a man against the First Woman President- evah.
2016- The year of the Womens.

This Marxist tells so many lies, the media couldn’t keep up- even if they wanted too…..

The president’s insistence that Washington doesn’t have a spending problem…

The stupid is strong with this one.

Really, really strong.

I know dozens of people on food stamps and other forms of assistance. The fraud goes way beyond using cash benefits at strip clubs. the NY Post article kind of alluded it to, but if you go to any bodega in an inner city, you can use your EBT card to buy booze, cigs, or get cash back. The clerks ring it up as bread or milk or whatnot, charge a small fee, and you get whatever you want in return.And not a single person I know on food stamps NEEDS it. Most, like my cousins, are just lazy moochers who would rather party every day and live like they’re 18 then be responsible adults and get a real job. It’s not so much a matter of not being able to work or find work as it is not wanting to work, and not trying to find work. Food stamps change the incentives… Why work if all you care about is partying, and your basic needs will be met by the government?
Timin203 on January 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I could not agree more. I saw this during my career, and have a couple of relatives that want my hard earned money so they never have to work a day in their lives. I can’t believe that Obama wants more of what little money I have so he can give it to deadbeats.

This is why I was strongly in favor of the Fair Tax, but I can see that’s not going anywhere.

Anyhow, since the progs want a VAT, thinking it will only hurt those with incomes, I say go for it. The drug dealers, the bridge card brigade (since one can apparently use them for everything), the pimps, other assorted holders of ill-gotten gains and those who pay no tax whatsoever, can finally have their very own skin in the game.

For those of us who can control our spending, I think it’s an option to get 100% tax compliance. A bitter, but possibly necessary, medicine.