RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt...

RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle There is no "debt ceiling". THEY VOTED FOR THE DEBT. Maybe they just can't add or something? I don't think you'll find all that many fiscal conservatives who would actually agree the Republican party is fiscally conservative. To my own eyes it looks like both parties are willing to spend us into the grave. The only real question is whether we want to own more bombs or more bridges.

RacerJim -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bush spent that money on pointless wars during a booming,economy where we could have have paid down the debt, you know, like we did under Clinton. Obama used deficit spending in an attempt to repair the foundation of our very economy. Those are your opinions, unlike my facts. Wait. Are you saying that our economy wasnt in a death spiral? Are you saying that lowering taxes like we did under Clinton created a booming economy which allowed Clinton to pay down the debt? Are you calling the National Bureau of Economic Research liars for deeming the recession over in mid-2009?

mnottertail -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:27:20 PM)
You don't know what a recession is do you?

RacerJim -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You don't know what a recession is do you? And you either don't know what facts are or don't care about facts do you?

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:48:55 PM)
It was the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the NBER who determined that based upon a trough in business activity. Q: Does the concept of a double-dip recession exist in the NBER's business cycle chronology? A: The NBER does not define a special category called a double-dip recession. Two periods of contraction will be either two separate recessions or parts of the same recession. The main criteria that the committee applies to determine whether a downturn following one business cycle peak and apparent trough is a separate recession or the continuation of the earlier one are the duration and strength of the upturn after the initial trough. For example, the committee's determination that the recession that began in 1981 was separate from the one that began in 1980 was based in part on the extent to which major economic indicators bounced back in late 1980 and early 1981. Since its inception in 1978, the committee has not encountered any other episode that involved two consecutive contractions. The committee does not apply fixed formulas in this and other determinations, but rather forms judgments based on the underlying concepts of recessions and expansions and the goal of preserving historical continuity in the NBER business cycle chronology. Now, taking into consideration the following... An economic recovery is the phase of the business cycle following a recession, during which an economy regains and exceeds peak employment and output levels achieved prior to downturn. A recovery period is typically characterized by abnormally high levels of growth in real gross domestic product, employment, corporate profits, and other indicators. Where is the recovery? There isnt one. Yet we all know that if the auto makers had gone under, the June recovery wouldnt have been possible under any stretch of the imagination. Our economy became a massive sink hole that had to be filled. Bush started it, Obama continued it. Would not have been my choice, but there ya go. Its very easy for you to be an armchair President, pointing fingers at what one did... just remember when you point one, three are pointing back.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:54:31 PM)
quote: Are you saying that lowering taxes like we did under Clinton created a booming economy which allowed Clinton to pay down the debt? LOL... funny how you neglect the tax hikes on 1993 and only remember the lowered taxes in 1997. Gee.. wonder why we could afford to lower those taxes then....

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 5:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Are you saying that lowering taxes like we did under Clinton created a booming economy which allowed Clinton to pay down the debt? LOL... funny how you neglect the tax hikes on 1993 and only remember the lowered taxes in 1997. Gee.. wonder why we could afford to lower those taxes then.... The economy of the 90's was completely separate from the tax policies of Clinton. "The internet" wasn't created because of lower tax rates. nor was research that led to the internet. The imagination of those who initially saw the huge potential for business based around the internet was also not due to tax policy. I will say the real estate bubble was definitely fueled by the low cost of credit. The real tipping point in that bubble was Fannie and Freddie getting into the action of telling lenders they'd buy the loans, buying any loan, and then abruptly stopping without any forewarning. How is it that closing loopholes isn't a better idea than to simply raise rates? Raising rates means that the rich will work harder to use the loopholes. Closing the loopholes will bring everyone back to the actual tax brackets. How is it that revenues are near record highs, deficits are at record highs, and spending isn't the issue?

erieangel -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 6:23:38 PM)
When did anybody say spending isn't an issue? We spent money on wars we didn't need to fight. And borrowed to pay for them. We spent money on bank bailouts when the banks should have been left to go bankrupt. And borrowed to pay for that. And just recently, it was revealed that back in September,House Republicans approved $500,000 increase to a private law firm to defend DOMA. And republicans did this secretly, without the Dems even knowing about it. The Dems were not informed of this spending until this week. I am left wondering how many welfare recipients 1/2 million dollars covers; or how many school lunches that pays for; how many elderly people manage to visit doctors? Because those are things the Republicans would like to cut--welfare for the extremely poor, school lunches to hungry kids and medical care for the 65 year old grandma. But they see no problem with pissing away 1/2 million dollars on a losing legal battle that even the justice department has determined is probably unconstitutional. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/house-gop-secretly-authorized-500000-defend-unconstitutional-anti-gay-law?akid=9801.286161.jBCZ2C&rd=1&src=newsletter760998&t=16 ETA: because I forgot the link.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 6:26:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle There is no "debt ceiling". THEY VOTED FOR THE DEBT. Maybe they just can't add or something? This is news.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 6:28:09 PM)
quote: How is it that closing loopholes isn't a better idea than to simply raise rates? Raising rates means that the rich will work harder to use the loopholes. Closing the loopholes will bring everyone back to the actual tax brackets. Again, Im the flat tax girl. Raise rates. Close loopholes. An extremely simplified tax code. Put millions of accountants out of business (I have no idea how many there are) Save corporations millions on accounting costs alone. Sounds like a damn good plan to me. quote: revenues are near record highs Tax revenues? I want to be sure we are discussing the same thing. quote: deficits are at record highs Sure we are going with that?

Edwynn -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 8:12:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I will say the real estate bubble was definitely fueled by the low cost of credit. That would be from Greenspan, the Mises/Rand suck-up, yes. quote: The real tipping point in that bubble was Fannie and Freddie getting into the action of telling lenders they'd buy the loans, buying any loan, and then abruptly stopping without any forewarning. You are more funny than you could possibly imagine. Fannie and Freddie have been private since '68 and '72, respectively, and so have been for-profit ever since, and so then were open to suggestion from the private sector that mortgage-backed securities would be a wonderful thing. But the lending standards of those agencies have always been and still were, at the last, higher than elsewhere in the private sector. The sharp upturn in subprime and alt A mortgages did not occur in 1938, nor in 1968 or 1972, nor even after Sandy Weil came up with the idea of MBS. The sharp upturn in subprime mortgages, gouging people in poor neighborhoods, along with drastically lowered credit standards, was a direct and ineluctable result of the CDOs which took MBS and further sliced them into the most incomprehensible Frankenstein derivatives. Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that monstrosity, other than getting into that game quite late, to a far lesser extent than others had. Neither did the two former GSEs get into the credit default swaps or the variants of synthetic CDOs therefrom. The fact that more than one CDS could accept premiums on a single CDO, and any of them being leveraged as much as 30/1 or even 40/1, were all the doing of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., and a host of others, NOT Freddie and FannienMae. Just ask AIG. Countrywide, IndyMac, Ameriquest, et al. (all directly responsible for looting the wealth, what little there was of it, from the lower and lowest middle class) seemed to have flown under your ideological radar. Reality bites ideology in the butt, yet again.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 8:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I will say the real estate bubble was definitely fueled by the low cost of credit. That would be from Greenspan, the Mises/Rand suck-up, yes. Price controls are not a hallmark of Austrian Economics. Had The Fed allowed the Market to determine rates, your assertion would be closer to being correct. quote: quote: The real tipping point in that bubble was Fannie and Freddie getting into the action of telling lenders they'd buy the loans, buying any loan, and then abruptly stopping without any forewarning. You are more funny than you could possibly imagine. Fannie and Freddie have been private since '68 and '72, respectively, and so have been for-profit ever since, and so then were open to suggestion from the private sector that mortgage-backed securities would be a wonderful thing. But the lending standards of those agencies have always been and still were, at the last, higher than elsewhere in the private sector. The sharp upturn in subprime and alt A mortgages did not occur in 1938, nor in 1968 or 1972, nor even after Sandy Weil came up with the idea of MBS. The sharp upturn in subprime mortgages, gouging people in poor neighborhoods, along with drastically lowered credit standards, was a direct and ineluctable result of the CDOs which took MBS and further sliced them into the most incomprehensible Frankenstein derivatives. Thanks for the new word! Never heard of it before now. And, honestly, I am not using the sarcasm font. quote: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with that monstrosity, other than getting into that game quite late, to a far lesser extent than others had. Neither did the two former GSEs get into the credit default swaps or the variants of synthetic CDOs therefrom. The fact that more than one CDS could accept premiums on a single CDO, and any of them being leveraged as much as 30/1 or even 40/1, were all the doing of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., and a host of others, NOT Freddie and FannienMae. Just ask AIG. Countrywide, IndyMac, Ameriquest, et al. (all directly responsible for looting the wealth, what little there was of it, from the lower and lowest middle class) seemed to have flown under your ideological radar. Reality bites ideology in the butt, yet again. Actually, those banks didn't fly under my radar. They all failed, and I shed not one tear. I was closer to shedding a tear when the Financial sector was bailed out, though. IMO, all those involved should have had to deal with the burns their playing with fire caused. The two most important things in Capitalism, are profits (which should not be demonized as they tell us what works) and - just as important - loss (which should not be prevented because it tells us what doesn't work). Fannie and Freddie were complicit, and so were the mortgage giants. Read here and here. All in all, it wasn't the Free Market that fucked things up, but Government intervention, starting in the 70's, made worse by Clinton, not stopped under Bush, and it finally blew up. Where did the "toxic assets" go? What happened to the malinvestments? Until they are out of our system, things won't be able to grow on solid financials.

Edwynn -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 11:08:20 AM)
So you consider the onslaught of financial deregulation from the '80s onwards as being "government interference"? The S&L crash of the late '80s was in direct response to deregulation that actually allowed that very thing, just so you know. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) and the Phill Gramm-led Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both of which eviscerated any possibility of government interference, the latter Act specifically prohibiting government oversight whatsoever? That sort of 'government intervention,' you mean? Or was it Wendy Gramm, as chair of the CFTC, who refused to do her job and allowed Enron to do as they liked? Or was it Alan Greenspan, who never lifted a finger in regards to the congressional mandate that he exercise control over the banks? You mean THAT 'government intervention'? Well, yeah, we can all just imagine how much better off the country would be with out that nettlesome 'government interference,' which was and is, in fact, the largest extent of government NON-interference, much less 'intervention,' in over 80 years .... Oh, but wait ... After all that government non-intervention we now need government intervention. One leads to the other, no escaping it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 11:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: How is it that closing loopholes isn't a better idea than to simply raise rates? Raising rates means that the rich will work harder to use the loopholes. Closing the loopholes will bring everyone back to the actual tax brackets. Again, Im the flat tax girl. Raise rates. We disagree on the rates needing to be raised. The highest tax rate I've seen for a flat tax is <25%, which would mean that some rates need to be raised, and some rates need to be lowered. quote: Close loopholes. This would result in the progressive tax code actually being progressive. There is not likely to be much more of a need to raise taxes to meet current spending and still be able to pay down the debt. Coupled with lower spending, we could do some real work on the debt. But, I can also see government expansion to use up all the surplus, and/or government re-placing loopholes in. quote: An extremely simplified tax code. Put millions of accountants out of business (I have no idea how many there are) Save corporations millions on accounting costs alone. Sounds like a damn good plan to me. quote: revenues are near record highs Tax revenues? I want to be sure we are discussing the same thing. Yes, and, for the most part, they are nearing record highs. Which tax type would you like (all numbers in the millions of dollars)? United States, total 2000 1,900.3 2001 1,875.0 2002 1,732.7 2003 1,650.4 2004 1,738.7 2005 1,998.9 2006 2,238.3 2007 2,396.3 2008 2,316.2 2009 1,907.7 2010 1,877.8 2011 1,999.1 Corporation income tax 2000 205.3 2001 148.8 2002 144.7 2003 128.8 2004 184.8 2005 272.8 2006 351.1 2007 368.5 2008 300.7 2009 130.3 2010 179.6 2011 175.1 Individual income tax 2000 978.4 2001 971.5 2002 827.6 2003 757.4 2004 762.7 2005 879.9 2006 993.6 2007 1,117.6 2008 1,059.9 2009 854.0 2010 814.0 2011 1,006.5 Employment taxes 2000 634.7 2001 675.9 2002 684.1 2003 691.5 2004 713.6 2005 766.3 2006 809.9 2007 838.0 2008 877.5 2009 854.8 2010 820.0 2011 762.7 Estate and gift taxes 2000 28.9 2001 28.3 2002 26.4 2003 21.9 2004 24.8 2005 24.7 2006 27.8 2007 26.0 2008 28.8 2009 23.4 2010 18.8 2011 7.3 Excise taxes 2000 53.0 2001 50.5 2002 49.9 2003 50.7 2004 52.9 2005 55.1 2006 55.8 2007 46.2 2008 49.3 2009 45.1 2010 45.3 2011 47.5 All data compiled from the individual tables pulled from this IRS page. quote: quote: deficits are at record highs Sure we are going with that? Okay, I was wrong. They aren't record highs, but, they are pretty close. Top 10* Surplus (+) or Deficit (–) 2009 -1,412,688 2012 -1,326,948 (est.)* 2011 -1,299,595 2010 -1,293,489 2013 -901,408 (est.) 2014 -667,802 (est.) 2016 -648,755 (est.) 2017 -612,448 (est.) 2015 -609,713 (est.) 2008 -458,553 2004 -412,727 2003 -377,585 2005 -318,346 1992 -290,321 1991 -269,238 1993 -255,051 current budget estimates shown where they would rank in the list, but not counted towards the Top 10) Numbers in the millions of $ **If this was updated to show more accurate deficit numbers, 2012 would move down 2 spots Data taken from the hist01z1 Table found here. Taking the Bush years to be 2002 - 2009 (which isn't exactly accurate, but we'll go with it), 5 of those 16 spots are his. At this point, including estimates, every Obama year would make the Top 10. I apologize if you don't respect my sources. [8D]

mnottertail -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 12:01:50 PM)
and since they are deficit numbers there would be more in Ws years, since alot of his stuff was done with emergency appropriations, and they aren't in the deficit.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 12:52:23 PM)
Corporate are much lower. Individual are not much better. Estate taxes are a joke. Employment taxes are down.. as I expected with unemployment. Excise taxes are down. We are barely better than 2005. Many of those arent near record highs. As far as the deficit.... 2009 is Bush. Obama's policies, fiscally, dont even begin until October. The effect wouldnt be felt before the end of the year. Tack on the war funds, and the explosion is quite easy to see the why. Your information isnt that much different than mine. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 I see 2011 as the turning point in the economy, fiscally. Mine shows the next 5 years as the highs yet to come. only time will tell. And yet we will still run a deficit of 612.4 come 2017. (From your source) Now, corporate refunds were at 27.9% for 2011. While individual tax refunds were at 25.2%. Interesting how many we see scream about the individuals and their refunds......

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 4:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn So you consider the onslaught of financial deregulation from the '80s onwards as being "government interference"? The S&L crash of the late '80s was in direct response to deregulation that actually allowed that very thing, just so you know. The only reason they de-regulated the S&L's was because they had capped the amount of interest S&L's could offer on savings. With the interest rates rising as they were back then, S&L's would have gone under because of the cap. They couldn't compete with banks for savings, which was where they got money to loan back then. They relaxed those rules, and then slapped them back on, forcing the S&L's to return to the previous limits. Not only did they do that, but Congress then forced a fire sale of all their assets that no longer fit within the regulations. I'm sure you can understand how fire sales tend to not get full value, which hurt the S&L's , sorta like adding insult to injury. There absolutely were some S&L employees that took less than legal actions, but not all of them. quote: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) and the Phill Gramm-led Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both of which eviscerated any possibility of government interference, the latter Act specifically prohibiting government oversight whatsoever? That sort of 'government intervention,' you mean? Or was it Wendy Gramm, as chair of the CFTC, who refused to do her job and allowed Enron to do as they liked? Or was it Alan Greenspan, who never lifted a finger in regards to the congressional mandate that he exercise control over the banks? You mean THAT 'government intervention'? Well, yeah, we can all just imagine how much better off the country would be with out that nettlesome 'government interference,' which was and is, in fact, the largest extent of government NON-interference, much less 'intervention,' in over 80 years .... Oh, but wait ... After all that government non-intervention we now need government intervention. One leads to the other, no escaping it. What we need is to allow the Markets to work, to not add more and more regulations when the current ones aren't even being enforced (too much porn on the 'net for the regulators to pay attention to doing their jobs). All the Government meddling in setting rates (as opposed to the Market doing so) has done lots of damage to the Nation.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 6:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Corporate are much lower. What caused the drop from '08 to '09? Bush Tax Policy? Why are they lower in 2011 vs. 2010? quote: Individual are not much better. LMAO!!! You state that "Corporate are much lower" at $30.2M difference, but that "Individual are not much better" at $28.1M. I'm sure there's no ideology going on there. Not to mention that they are 3rd highest. quote: Estate taxes are a joke. How many times should money get taxed? quote: Employment taxes are down.. as I expected with unemployment. Actually, that's probably more due to the 2% reduction in payroll taxes from 2011. Whoops. Forgot. That was your guy's idea. quote: Excise taxes are down. Who really ends up paying excise taxes anyway? Answer: The Consumer. quote: We are barely better than 2005. Making it only the 4th highest all-time. And, not quite $400M from the all-time high, btw. quote: Many of those arent near record highs. Yeah, worst is the $101.1B difference between 2011's 3rd all-time high and 2007's record. Let's raise individual rates!!! As far as the deficit.... 2009 is Bush. Obama's policies, fiscally, dont even begin until October. Huh. When did the "Stimulus" start? Should we have a little chat about who makes the budgets and stuff, too? I mean, if Republicans are being blamed for spending now, since they run the House of Representatives, who ran the show from 2007 - 2011? Doesn't count in this argument, right? quote: The effect wouldnt be felt before the end of the year. Tack on the war funds, and the explosion is quite easy to see the why. Your information isnt that much different than mine. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 I see 2011 as the turning point in the economy, fiscally. Mine shows the next 5 years as the highs yet to come. only time will tell. And yet we will still run a deficit of 612.4 come 2017. (From your source) I was hoping 2012 numbers would be in. I think overall Federal deficit came in around $1.1T, not the $1.3T estimated. I pulled the table today, though, so it's up-to-date as of this morning. Now, corporate refunds were at 27.9% for 2011. While individual tax refunds were at 25.2%. Interesting how many we see scream about the individuals and their refunds...... I have to add that I missed something in my data. Apparently you didn't catch it, either, but, I said all amounts were in millions of dollars... they were billions of dollars. Now, go back to the Federal revenues under Clinton. I've mentioned it so many times before, but Clinton's best revenue year was 2000, at $2.025T. That's on and off budget, not just "tax" revenues. In 2010, Federal tax revenues were $22.5B less than Clinton's best, and 2011 was just over $25B less than Clinton's Total Federal Revenues. Something else that made me scratch my head: .......Taxes (% Year Tot Rev) Total Less Taxes 2000 93.83% $124,891M 2001 94.17% $116,082M 2002 93.50% $120,436M 2003 92.60% $131,914M 2004 92.48% $141,414M 2005 92.82% $154,711M 2006 93.00% $168,569M 2007 93.31% $171,685M 2008 91.77% $207,791M 2009 90.63% $197,289M 2010 86.83% $284,924M 2011 86.79% $304,366M Where did this non-tax money come from? Total Revenues are up, but so are the non-Tax Revenues. Don't take that to mean that I think someone is cooking the books. I'm just curious as to where that comes from. In general, Federal tax revenue was to 92.5-94.2% of the total, until 2008, when non-tax revenues started to rise.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 9:31:42 PM)
duplicate

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/15/2012 9:33:01 PM)
quote: What caused the drop from '08 to '09? Bush Tax Policy? Why are they lower in 2011 vs. 2010? WASHINGTON—U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years. Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008. Corporate income-tax receipts typically fall during recessions, and they declined sharply after the 2008 financial crisis, which wiped out big swaths of profits across the huge financial sector. But U.S. profits have rebounded sharply in recent quarters, while tax receipts have stayed low. So where is the money? There are a lot of moving pieces, budget watchers say, but one view shared inside Washington is that a temporary tax break—supported by both political parties—is a key reason. This tax break, known as "bonus depreciation," has allowed companies to write off investments in goods like industrial equipment, manufacturing machinery and computers in the year in which they're bought rather than over time. The White House estimates the subsidy has saved companies roughly $55 billion in corporate income taxes over each of the past two years. Companies just reporting fourth-quarter earnings made clear they have aggressively taken advantage of the tax break, which lasted in full through December. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html quote: How many times should money get taxed? How many times is our money taxed? Take your gross dollar, and send it through the system. See how well its sliced and diced to nothing. quote: Actually, that's probably more due to the 2% reduction in payroll taxes from 2011. Whoops. Forgot. That was your guy's idea. Your math is way off. Thats way more than a 2% reduction. quote: Who really ends up paying excise taxes anyway? Answer: The Consumer. And? It still doesnt correlate with your assumption. quote: Making it only the 4th highest all-time. And, not quite $400M from the all-time high, btw. 4th highest doesnt make it "near record highs" quote: Huh. When did the "Stimulus" start? Should we have a little chat about who makes the budgets and stuff, too? I mean, if Republicans are being blamed for spending now, since they run the House of Representatives, who ran the show from 2007 - 2011? Doesn't count in this argument, right? The stimulus started with Bush. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Is_Economic_Stimulus_Enough_080118.html The response of our economic planners in the Bush Administration was a $170 billion economic stimulus package which took the form of tax rebate checks of $500 per household. It had little or no stimulating effect. Nevertheless, the Obama administration came up with a similar gift to each householder with similar results. The Bush administration under Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson did come up with one successful program, the $700 billion fund, known by its initials TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which saved the entire U.S. financial system from bankruptcy. The public thinks of it erroneously as a bailout. Instead of buying the troubled mortgages and derivatives from the banks, et. al., it lent enormous sums to the banks and insurance companies which urgently needed to raise cash or succumb to bankruptcy. Much of the money TARP lent has been paid back. But it did not create a single job except for new TARP bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the banks still have hundreds of billions of troubled mortgages. If the economy should dip again, TARP will once again have to come to the rescue. http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3165.shtml that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008 The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program 2008 outlays (from your source) 2,982,544 Receipts 2,523,991 Deficit -458,553 Are you really going to try and tell me that that amount didnt get tacked onto the 2009 deficits as opposed to the 2008? Do you really want to go there? As of February 9, 2009, $388 billion had been allotted, and $296 billion spent, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Among the money committed, includes Obama had been in office how long and you want to saddle him with something that had been already allocated and state its not the person who allocated the money who is fault, but the person sitting in the chair? quote: quote: Now, corporate refunds were at 27.9% for 2011. While individual tax refunds were at 25.2%. Interesting how many we see scream about the individuals and their refunds...... I have to add that I missed something in my data. Apparently you didn't catch it, either, but, I said all amounts were in millions of dollars... they were billions of dollars Doesnt matter if its in millions or billions. Go back to your source. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Collections-and-Refunds,-by-Type-of-Tax---IRS-Data-Book-Table-1 2011 Gross collections from individuals 2011 1,346,182,227 refunds 339,696,496 Business Income 242,848,122 Business Refunds (which arent really, but are effectively the same) 67,777,004 quote: Where did this non-tax money come from? I would need the source for that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625