Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action

while the owners get richer.

you stupid fucking :asshole: "the owners get richer", that is the way it is supposed to work you stupid fucking commie !

get your stupid lazy ass out and get a job that pays better than your welfare check.

is your parents getting tired of you filling their basement with your shit ?

if not, they should..., and kick your lazy ass OUT !!!
OHHH that is the way it is supposed work??? Such harsh words. Let me guess you must be one who found a way to pretend to work so hard while sitting back collecting off the ones who actually bust their ass. Does it make you feel better when you belittle people while sitting on your high horse? Only a lack of greater intelligence would choose words like that to defend their principals of living. So full of anger and hatred. Let me guess your parents kicked your ass out cause you chose the wrong path? So you live and strive off the pain of others to make a living without care or regret..
 
I really want to know how much extra money was spent on those wars, then if not?

We don't have a draft, the military payroll would still have been spent.

The cost of fuel would have still been spent, since we always send our navy fleets all over the world

So what was the real costs?

We blew 150 tomahawk missles at $500,000 a piece for example, but they are made in the USA by Union workers and provided jobs for there local Economies during a recession

So what was the real price tag? And be honest
Actually with all the guardsmen and reservist activated to help support the war caused much more spending to support the war. Not to mention all the vehicles lost that had to be replaced. The cost of up armoring all the Humvees had to be astronomical. See we went over there with no armor on the vehicles. So they put bullet proof glass in the windshields and door and then added about 2" of aluminum alloy to all doors. When they all started getting blown up there had to be something done to protect our lives. They started to make robots to sweep for bombs and much more. Not to mention now there are all kinds of disability checks going out to those people who lost limbs and now have mental disabilities due to the type of warfare. So the real costs of that war are going to continue for a lifetime. And what about the costs of fuels for the vehicles sitting idle all day and all the generators to supply power to our troops to make sure they can survive and communicate. Plus all the donations that went into the towns to help rebuild and improve info structure and the way of living there.
 
Barry's primary goal of crippling the American economy and system of government
Are you better off now than you were 6 years ago? Yes.
No. Household income is lower, household wealth is lower. Opportunities are fewer. Unless you're in the top 5% of earners you are much worse off. That's the whole point here, skippy.
You're full of shit, but that's already well-known. Ask any retiree if their 401k is better today or was it better on Obama's first day in office.
 
You realize he (via legislation) raised their taxes a couple years ago, by 8-11%, right? And how is taking more money out of the economy and giving it to the government going to help the economy?
You think the top 5% earners were spending that money?

 
Tax cuts don't create gov't debt ... overspending does.
Good god dude lol. Over spending is defined by the amount of revenue stream...

BS ... gov't debt is driven by gov't overspending.
For fuck sake lol. What do you think funds any government spending?

Individuals have to live within their means. Our federal gov't has a different approach ... they can borrow to cover their OVERSPENDING or just print more money. Either way we pay for their OVERSPENDING.
Just answer the question. What funds any level of government spending? Do you honestly believe it is funded by "printing money"? Please tell me otherwise lol
Increasing the supply of currency is a method by which government can increase borrowing.
This is called "monetizing debt". And it's bad economic policy.
 
Did either of those use executive orders to circimvent Congress and rewrite laws?
Yes.
Links?
You're asking for examples? Is that because you're a dumbass who doesn't know recent history, and has no business debating on this site?

OK - Bush used an EO to forbid Federal funding of stem cell research. That's clearly an issue (funding) that should originate in the House.

Why was that not illegal?
 
BS ... gov't debt is driven by gov't overspending.
For fuck sake lol. What do you think funds any government spending?

Individuals have to live within their means. Our federal gov't has a different approach ... they can borrow to cover their OVERSPENDING or just print more money. Either way we pay for their OVERSPENDING.
Just answer the question. What funds any level of government spending? Do you honestly believe it is funded by "printing money"? Please tell me otherwise lol

Tell me you deny the federal gov't funds its OVERSPENDING by borrowing or printing more money.
Um borrowing money yes certainly. Printing money? Lol not even close
The federal reserve prints currency at the behest of the federal government.
For example, funding of each edition of Quantitative Easing has been funded by increasing the supply of currency.
 
People literally do not care if Obama has the authority to do something or not, they just want him to do it.
Except for the fact that he does have that authority.

Which means that the next Republican president can just as easily cut taxes using the same method. Cheering Obama on in this will result in some badly bitten butts.
 
OP- Very scary but BS. Except for corporate loopoles, which your Pub heroes defend to the deat, hater dupes...

Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.
Obama's preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike

The subject is Obama's seeming desire to unilaterally raise them on his own, but setting that aside the IRS cannot "raise" taxes either.
 
Individuals have to live within their means. Our federal gov't has a different approach ... they can borrow to cover their OVERSPENDING or just print more money. Either way we pay for their OVERSPENDING.
Just answer the question. What funds any level of government spending? Do you honestly believe it is funded by "printing money"? Please tell me otherwise lol

Tell me you deny the federal gov't funds its OVERSPENDING by borrowing or printing more money.
Um borrowing money yes certainly. Printing money? Lol not even close

Really? What limit do you see to our gov't's ability to print money? Either way - print or borrow - it is used to fund gov't OVERSPENDING.
Just answer this question: what funds any level of government spending? Our badass military? Hell your local police force? Highways?
Taxes..What difference does that make?
The fact of the matter is our federal government has no clue the concept of fiscal restraint or responsibility.
Just because the federal government receives a dollar of revenue does not mean they must spend the entire dollar.
This is not a blank check thing. Where the government gets to spend how ever it wishes then says "oops, we went a little overboard"..And then have the gall to go to the people to demand , not request, demand more.
Government should be run this way....When it gets a dollar, it should be able to use its vast intellectual resources to figure out how to stretch that dollar and presumably have a little something left over for a "rainy day"....That's called a "BUDGET"....
Few of us object to the concept of funding government through taxation. We get it. It's the price we pay for what we have as a nation. But we certainly do have the right to have a say in how the money is spent and when those spending it don't do it right, we have the right to in a figurative sense, call them to task and explain their irresponsibility.
 
Did either of those use executive orders to circimvent Congress and rewrite laws?
Yes.
Links?
You're asking for examples? Is that because you're a dumbass who doesn't know recent history, and has no business debating on this site?

OK - Bush used an EO to forbid Federal funding of stem cell research. That's clearly an issue (funding) that should originate in the House.

Why was that not illegal?
Why was it not challenged in court?
 
Did either of those use executive orders to circimvent Congress and rewrite laws?
Yes.
Links?
You're asking for examples? Is that because you're a dumbass who doesn't know recent history, and has no business debating on this site?

OK - Bush used an EO to forbid Federal funding of stem cell research. That's clearly an issue (funding) that should originate in the House.

Why was that not illegal?
because the federal government looked at the manner in which most stem cells were gathered( by aborting fetuses produced for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells) orginated and decided that the government was not going to have the legal authority to sanction abortion for research. Hence leaving it to the private sector to fund its own research...
Now, if there is another safer and non lethal manner to harvest brain stem cells, the government may do well to assist in funding that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top