Taxes Under Obama Hit Lowest Level Since 1950

And the Obama Tax cuts.
LIAR!!! It was the Bush tax cuts. Obamaturd extended them only under pressure. Funny how you want to give credit to obamaturd for something you and him hate. IDIOTS!!!!

1/3 of the Obama stimulus was Obama tax cuts and had nothing to do with Bush.
You are soooo funny. Obamaturd has never had an original idea. It either was left over from Bush or it came from his commie handlers. His stimulus that has failed right? I thought so. LIAR!!!!
 
The Tea Party became the Troll Party yesterday. I renamed it. So the Troll Party supports Obama's government because of smaller government, fewer employees, and less taxation.

The Troll Party wanted smaller government and revenues, right?

Troll party? I don't know who that is, but I know I want smaller spending as well as smaller government and smaller revenues.

Isnt that cute. However a rename still has you as an idiot.

The tea party doesnt support killing freedom (business) to get there.
 
We no more want the Trolls than we want the Dems.

Romney will do fine as he kicks ass on both far left and far right.
 
LIAR!!! It was the Bush tax cuts. Obamaturd extended them only under pressure. Funny how you want to give credit to obamaturd for something you and him hate. IDIOTS!!!!

1/3 of the Obama stimulus was Obama tax cuts and had nothing to do with Bush.
You are soooo funny. Obamaturd has never had an original idea. It either was left over from Bush or it came from his commie handlers. His stimulus that has failed right? I thought so. LIAR!!!!

Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1
Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1 - USATODAY.com
 

That's not all...

groups_1304632029.jpg


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


Forbes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UxR1C.png


Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History

AoIlA-NCMAESV2s.gif


the Atlantic

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Here's an excellent take down of this silly claim, from the comments section.....

“Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there’s the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama’s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama’s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 billion chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

–$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

–Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

–The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers.

Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama’s request for 2013.

“You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank.

So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:

–A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

–A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.

FactCheckBanner.png


Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Spending is high by historical standards -- but rising slowly. And revenues are low.

Posted on June 4, 2012 , Updated on June 7, 2012


Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Moderate Increases Since 2009

Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.

Update, June 7: A new CBO monthly report, issued after this article was posted, showed outlays for the first eight months of the fiscal year running 1.2 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, after adjusting for timing of payments and also after taking account of an unusual adjustment to TARP outlays booked in May 2011. The June 7 CBO report thus shows fiscal 2012 spending to be on track to increase only slightly for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

But CBO also projected on June 5 that by the end of the year, due to the continued mismatch between outlays and receipts, “the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”

All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.

Overrated ‘TARP Effect’

Some have claimed that the modest spending increases since fiscal 2009 are illusory, and Obama’s spending has been masked by the way the government accounts for TARP spending. For example, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto wrote that TARP would have caused “a sharp increase in 2009, followed by a sharp decrease in 2010.”

Actually, not so much. A close look shows the TARP effect has been rather modest.

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?
 
Spending doesn't have to increase at all for it to be an "inferno".

This is eapecially true when spedning does greatly exceeds revenue, every penny of which The Obama has -chosen- to spend.
 
Last edited:
The Tea Party became the Troll Party yesterday. I renamed it. So the Troll Party supports Obama's government because of smaller government, fewer employees, and less taxation.

The Troll Party wanted smaller government and revenues, right?

Troll party? I don't know who that is, but I know I want smaller spending as well as smaller government and smaller revenues.

Is Obama spending less?
If not, then government is bigger, not smaller.
Have fun with your new party.
It fits you.
 
That's why we need to cut the military budget in half,pass single payer and stop corporate welfare.

LOL, Yeah It Defense spending causing the Problem, Nothing else.

no just one of the biggest WASTE of money.

uh huh, so we gut the military so they can waste it on something else........... and when thats gone?

and when the balloon goes up the next time, we pay for it in blood like we did in ww2 etc....great idea. :rolleyes:

The 'greater' European states and some of the lesser ones who never had one, have had a gutted military since the early 1990's, so hows that going?

QED- its aint military spending thats the problem.
 
That's not all...

groups_1304632029.jpg


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


Forbes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UxR1C.png


Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History

AoIlA-NCMAESV2s.gif


the Atlantic

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Here's an excellent take down of this silly claim, from the comments section.....

“Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?

First, there’s the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.

The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama’s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.

The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama’s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.

Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.

Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.

There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 billion chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:

–$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.

–Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.

–The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers.

Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama’s request for 2013.

“You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank.

So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:

–A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

–A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.

FactCheckBanner.png


Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Spending is high by historical standards -- but rising slowly. And revenues are low.

Posted on June 4, 2012 , Updated on June 7, 2012


Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Moderate Increases Since 2009

Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.

Update, June 7: A new CBO monthly report, issued after this article was posted, showed outlays for the first eight months of the fiscal year running 1.2 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, after adjusting for timing of payments and also after taking account of an unusual adjustment to TARP outlays booked in May 2011. The June 7 CBO report thus shows fiscal 2012 spending to be on track to increase only slightly for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

But CBO also projected on June 5 that by the end of the year, due to the continued mismatch between outlays and receipts, “the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”

All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.

Overrated ‘TARP Effect’

Some have claimed that the modest spending increases since fiscal 2009 are illusory, and Obama’s spending has been masked by the way the government accounts for TARP spending. For example, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto wrote that TARP would have caused “a sharp increase in 2009, followed by a sharp decrease in 2010.”

Actually, not so much. A close look shows the TARP effect has been rather modest.

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

a perfect example of fact check massaging, so answer me this- where did that 5.8 trillion in new debt from from? tarp? :lol:
 
Spending doesn't have to increase at all for it to be an "inferno".

This is eapecially true when spedning does greatly exceeds revenue, every penny of which The Obama has -chosen- to spend.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

We don't live in a vacuum. Obama inherited an economy that was shedding three quarter of a million jobs per month, was in a dangerous free fall and was also shedding REVENUE at historical high levels. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger.

HERE is what Obama faced as he entered office. WHAT would you have done?

Ow0ja.jpg


Not every penny Obama chose to spend. That is pure ignorance.


Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]
 
One step at a time, bright eyes, one step at a time.

Troll Party perfectly fits the Tea Party.

The Tea Party became the Troll Party yesterday. I renamed it. So the Troll Party supports Obama's government because of smaller government, fewer employees, and less taxation.

Troll party? I don't know who that is, but I know I want smaller spending as well as smaller government and smaller revenues.

Is Obama spending less?
If not, then government is bigger, not smaller.
Have fun with your new party.
It fits you.
 
Not every penny Obama chose to spend. That is pure ignorance.
As all spending is volutary, it is the absolutetruth.
As such, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits.

Ignorance and emoting is not an excuse.

Federal spending is divided into three broad categories: discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and net interest. Discretionary spending is a smaller proportion of total federal outlays compared to mandatory spending.

Dec 23, 2010

Obama issues pay freeze order

President calls freeze 'first step' to address fiscal challenge

President Barack Obama issued an executive order the evening of Dec. 22 to carry out the two-year federal employee pay freeze that was signed into law that day. The White House first proposed the halt to salary increases in November, and the freeze was included as part of a continuing resolution approved by Congress Dec. 21.

In a memorandum accompanying the executive order, the president reiterated his reason for recommending the freeze.

“Despite the sacrifices that I knew a pay freeze would entail for our dedicated civil servants, I concluded that a two-year freeze in the upward statutory adjustment of pay schedules is a necessary first step in our effort to address the challenge of our fiscal reality,” Obama wrote.

FCW

Aug. 21, 2012

Obama extends federal pay freeze
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday that he is extending a two-year pay freeze for federal employees until at least next spring.

Read more here: Obama extends federal pay freeze - KansasCity.com
 
Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.


"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

That conclusion echoed a similar finding from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities last month. CBPP found


Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That's true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950 | Crooks and Liars


Obama has spent more than any 2 term President in the history of the United States in just 3-1/2 years.

A 24 year old entering the work force is estimated to pay $224,000.00 just for the INTEREST on this debt. 16 trillion dollars in red ink now with another 5 trillion to be added to this tab for interest over the next decade.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/05/news/economy/national-debt-interest/index.htm

What%252BDoes%252BOne%252BTrillion%252BDollars%252BLook%252BLike.jpg


Chart is 1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked together.

What does Obama and democrats want you to talk about? Abortion and who is going to pay for your birth control contraceptives.
 
Last edited:
Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.


"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

That conclusion echoed a similar finding from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities last month. CBPP found


Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That's true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950 | Crooks and Liars


Obama has spent more than any 2 term President in the history of the United States in just 3-1/2 years.

A 24 year old entering the work force is estimated to pay $224,000.00 just for the INTEREST on this debt. 16 trillion dollars in red ink now with another 5 trillion to be added to this tab for interest over the next decade.
National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012

What%252BDoes%252BOne%252BTrillion%252BDollars%252BLook%252BLike.jpg


Chart is 1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked together.

What does Obama and democrats want you to talk about? Abortion and who is going to pay for your birth control contraceptives.
The Chinese could load that and ship it in 30 minutes.
murka could piss it away in 20 minutes.
 
Not every penny Obama chose to spend. That is pure ignorance.
As all spending is volutary, it is the absolutetruth.
As such, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits.

Ignorance and emoting is not an excuse.

Federal spending is divided into three broad categories: discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and net interest. Discretionary spending is a smaller proportion of total federal outlays compared to mandatory spending.
All of it is voluntary. None of it HAS to be spend.
NOTHING prevents the US government from halting ALL spending -- including 'mandatory' spending, which is only 'mandatory' because a law says it must be spent.
As such, every penny spent is spent voluntarily.
And so, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits
 
Last edited:
As all spending is volutary, it is the absolutetruth.
As such, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits.

Ignorance and emoting is not an excuse.

Federal spending is divided into three broad categories: discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and net interest. Discretionary spending is a smaller proportion of total federal outlays compared to mandatory spending.
All of it is voluntary. None of it HAS to be spend.
NOTHING prevents the US government from halting ALL spending -- including 'mandatory' spending, which is only 'mandatory' because a law says it must be spent.
As such, every penny spent is spent voluntarily.
And so, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits

For all to observe...the right wing child mind in full bloom...:lol::lol::lol:
 
Ignorance and emoting is not an excuse.

Federal spending is divided into three broad categories: discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and net interest. Discretionary spending is a smaller proportion of total federal outlays compared to mandatory spending.
All of it is voluntary. None of it HAS to be spend.
NOTHING prevents the US government from halting ALL spending -- including 'mandatory' spending, which is only 'mandatory' because a law says it must be spent.
As such, every penny spent is spent voluntarily.
And so, all deficits are voluntary.
The Obama -chose- to spend the money, and thus, chose to run the deficits
For all to observe...the right wing child mind in full bloom...:lol::lol::lol:
Translation:
You have no way to show how I am wrong, and you know it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top