How much Obama has really spent so far

[Meister]

A better question would be how much did the Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury?

Answer: $2.5 Trillion

But not to worry - what's left of the middle class will get that trickle down urine any minute now. It's all good.

Those tax cuts didn't cost the treasury anything. Americans were able to keep more of their money.

Incorrect. A cut in revenues to the US Treasury is a cut in revenues. And don't be so quick to suggest "Americans" were able to keep more of their money. Only the top 1% of these Americans realized substantial savings. The middle class got enough for a car payment, if they're were extremely lucky.

No amount of Newspeak or right wing dogma can challenge the fact today's top tax rate is half of what it was during Kennedy's time, and almost a third of Eisenhower's rate. Reagan started the ball rolling in the early eighties, and a dramatic acceleration of our wealth inequality followed immediately. We're now back in 1929 wealth distribution territory, and to believe that's nothing to worry about is foolish.

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)




Number of Returns with Positive AGI


AGI
($ millions)


Income Taxes Paid
($ millions)


Group's Share of Total AGI


Group's Share of Income Taxes


Income Split Point


Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers
139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% - 12.24%

Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%

1-5%
5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%

Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%

5-10%
6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%

Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%

10-25%
20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40%
9.29%

Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%

25-50%
34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96%
6.75%

Top 50%
69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%

Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Seems the rich pay the lions share to me. Sounds more like the liberals just can't get enough revenue so they can spend more....go figure.

 

[Gh0sTeR]

A tax cut does not cost anything.

It is merely revenue that the fucking government can't piss away, but the rub is they piss it away even if they don't have it.

When were you in VA-34? I had a friend who was in that squadron, in the AT shop in the early 90's.

 

[Meister]

Facts do not matter in partisan politics.
People enjoy being used as fools.

The liberals seem not to have a problem being a fool for our government.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Don't bother. These folks don't understand, nor do they want to understand the interactions between taxation and national prosperity.

Just TAX TAX TAX (everybody else) and all will be fine.

Let's see some non-Heritage Foundation/non-Von Mises data illustrating tax cuts for the top 2% (or 1%) spur growth in GDP.

Wow... do you just instinctively reach for the class warfare nugget on every issue? Or just when discussing this topic?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

A tax cut does not cost anything.

It is merely revenue that the fucking government can't piss away, but the rub is they piss it away even if they don't have it.

Exactly. ~BH

 

[Skull Pilot]

A tax cut does not cost anything.

It is merely revenue that the fucking government can't piss away, but the rub is they piss it away even if they don't have it.

When were you in VA-34? I had a friend who was in that squadron, in the AT shop in the early 90's.

My Dad flew with them, he got shot down in Nam

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yet another lame-assed reframing of the "we haven't overspent, we've under-taxed" argument.

ho-hum.

You retards keep saying he has overspent so do us all a favor and prove it, otherwise quitr chimping out over facts you don't like being a damn cry baby.

Prove it?


Ok

But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:
•Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
•Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
•Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

 

[kiwiman127]

Yet another lame-assed reframing of the "we haven't overspent, we've under-taxed" argument.

ho-hum.

You retards keep saying he has overspent so do us all a favor and prove it, otherwise quitr chimping out over facts you don't like being a damn cry baby.

Prove it?


Ok

But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:
•Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
•Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
•Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

Your graph is wrong, Soggy in NOLA said the Obama has already spent 5 trillion.

 

[McDowell's]

How much Obama has really spent so far - Yahoo! News


I thought Obama just spent, spent and spent.


LMAO!

No, the argument has been and always will be that he spends more than he SHOULD, and your rather stupid article does nothing to refute that. In fact, it effectively proves that point to any rational person. Based on the article Obama has spent $1.789 trillion more than he should have. As a conservative, I assume you agree that all tax cuts which would be deficit inducing should have a corresponding decrease in spending. Therefore, all the spending he did not cut in relation to any tax cuts counts as spending HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED. If Obama was amenable to extending the Bush tax cuts, he should have manned up and made the appropriate cuts. The same applies to Bush. He spent way more than he ever should have based upon the tax rates he wanted.

 

[The Infidel]

A better question would be how much did the Bush tax cuts cost the US Treasury?

Answer: $2.5 Trillion

But not to worry - what's left of the middle class will get that trickle down urine any minute now. It's all good.

Those tax cuts didn't cost the treasury anything. Americans were able to keep more of their money.

Don't bother. These folks don't understand, nor do they want to understand the interactions between taxation and national prosperity.

Just TAX TAX TAX (everybody else) and all will be fine.

Laffer curve - Conservapedia

 

[The Infidel]

A tax cut does not cost anything.

It is merely revenue that the fucking government can't piss away, but the rub is they piss it away even if they don't have it.

 

[8537]

Those tax cuts didn't cost the treasury anything. Americans were able to keep more of their money.

Don't bother. These folks don't understand, nor do they want to understand the interactions between taxation and national prosperity.

Just TAX TAX TAX (everybody else) and all will be fine.

Laffer curve - Conservapedia

Ya think the apex of the laffer curve is below a 35% top marginal rate?

 

[Gh0sTeR]

A tax cut does not cost anything.

It is merely revenue that the fucking government can't piss away, but the rub is they piss it away even if they don't have it.

When were you in VA-34? I had a friend who was in that squadron, in the AT shop in the early 90's.

My Dad flew with them, he got shot down in Nam

Oh wow that was a long time ago then. His service is greatly appreciated.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Those tax cuts didn't cost the treasury anything. Americans were able to keep more of their money.

Incorrect. A cut in revenues to the US Treasury is a cut in revenues. And don't be so quick to suggest "Americans" were able to keep more of their money. Only the top 1% of these Americans realized substantial savings. The middle class got enough for a car payment, if they're were extremely lucky.

No amount of Newspeak or right wing dogma can challenge the fact today's top tax rate is half of what it was during Kennedy's time, and almost a third of Eisenhower's rate. Reagan started the ball rolling in the early eighties, and a dramatic acceleration of our wealth inequality followed immediately. We're now back in 1929 wealth distribution territory, and to believe that's nothing to worry about is foolish.

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)




Number of Returns with Positive AGI


AGI
($ millions)


Income Taxes Paid
($ millions)


Group's Share of Total AGI


Group's Share of Income Taxes


Income Split Point


Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers
139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% - 12.24%

Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%

1-5%
5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%

Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%

5-10%
6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%

Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%

10-25%
20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40%
9.29%

Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%

25-50%
34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96%
6.75%

Top 50%
69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%

Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service



Seems the rich pay the lions share to me. Sounds more like the liberals just can't get enough revenue so they can spend more....go figure.

As well they should. The top one percent account for almost as much as the next 19 percent, see below.

Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent

1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

It's always amazing to see middle class (or lower) Americans scramble to justify cutting taxes on the fabulously wealthy. I've heard it said they believe some day they too will be making $5-100 million/year and are only protecting their future fat cat status. Foolishness on steroids.

This last go round with extending Bush's tax cuts is a prime example. Here we saw millions of middle and lower middle class citizens absolutely outraged when upping the current top rate by 3% was suggested (allowing Bush's tax cuts to sunset on schedule, per the law). During Eisenhower and Kennedy's terms, the top rate was 91%, then dropped to 70% until Reagan came along and slashed it further to 28%, it rose to 39% under Clinton until Bush/Republican Congress dropped it again to 35%. Meanwhile the economy is in the tank, WS and the financial sector are still BOOMING.

And now simply raising it a few percentage points is SOCIALISM, STATISM, COLLECTIVISM, ETC.

We have far too many corporate/elite class water carriers in this country. They've been programmed to fight 'patriotically' for the rights of the wealthy elites, their own fortunes irrelevant (again, they believe they too will move-in to that mansion on a hill...someday).

&#8220;There&#8217;s class warfare, all right, but it&#8217;s my class, the rich class, that&#8217;s making war, and we&#8217;re winning.&#8221; - Warren Buffet