HEY Warren... WHY NOT DONATE and Encourage Others LIKE MIllionaire Obama

[tooAlive]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

We're whining so that the government will cut it's obscene spending.

You're the ones in favor of it, so you should be the first to whip out the check book in support of your holy government.

 

[Article 15]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

We're whining so that the government will cut it's obscene spending.

You're the ones in favor of it, so you should be the first to whip out the check book in support of your holy government.

Your party is responsible for the spending explosion and blowing up the deficit to begin with.

 

[healthmyths]

I love the wingnut assumption that if they send extra money to the gov't then the gov't will just increase their spending by exactly that amount but they will create threads like these and call the other side "hypocrites" for not donating to the cause. It's nonsensical and hilarious.

I don't like sending tax dollars to be spent on:

--- $516,000 to create a video game called "Prom Week," which simulates the interaction of teenagers surrounding the biggest social night in high school. Really you think that is a good use of your tax dollars??? NOT ME!

Our tax dollars for A reality TV show in India. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.

I mean there is a lot crap going on by Obama but..
Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

Amtrak snacks.
Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services. AMTRAK BUYS at It costs taxpayers $3.40 for each can of soda the U.S. passenger railroad sells on its trains,
BUT Amtrak charges $2.00 ONLY in the GOVERNMENT!!!

Using military exercises to boost biofuels. The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
Again... YOU DON"T have a problem paying $27 per gallon for the navy??? Talk about a $500 pipewrench!!!

Conferences for government employees.
In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.


AND YOU LAUGH? YOU must be f...king crazy to want to send money to pay for pig poop studies... paying to study chinese prostitutes -- vietnamese male prostitutes??

 

[tooAlive]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

We're whining so that the government will cut it's obscene spending.

You're the ones in favor of it, so you should be the first to whip out the check book in support of your holy government.

Your party is responsible for the spending explosion and blowing up the deficit to begin with.

You mean those 2 wars?

Then yes, I agree with you. On that and all the other stupid things the Republicans have spent our money on. If we have to start cutting spending on useless Republican-sponsored policies, then great - lets start.

When we say "cut government spending" we don't just mean the Democrats.

 

[Article 15]

I love the wingnut assumption that if they send extra money to the gov't then the gov't will just increase their spending by exactly that amount but they will create threads like these and call the other side "hypocrites" for not donating to the cause. It's nonsensical and hilarious.

We're operating at a huge deficit.

It doesn't matter how much money we send the government, they always spend more than they take in.

No, they don't "always spend more than they take in".....there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office and it DOES matter how much you send the goverment. If were are operating at a trillion dollar deficit and you decide to send them check for a thousand bucks the deficit goes down to 999,999,999,000 ... the gov't doesn't go "sweet, Joe Asshole just sent us an extra thousand bucks let's use this for new, additional spending".

 

[tooAlive]

I love the wingnut assumption that if they send extra money to the gov't then the gov't will just increase their spending by exactly that amount but they will create threads like these and call the other side "hypocrites" for not donating to the cause. It's nonsensical and hilarious.

I don't like sending tax dollars to be spent on:

--- $516,000 to create a video game called "Prom Week," which simulates the interaction of teenagers surrounding the biggest social night in high school. Really you think that is a good use of your tax dollars??? NOT ME!

Our tax dollars for A reality TV show in India. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.

I mean there is a lot crap going on by Obama but..
Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

Amtrak snacks.
Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services. AMTRAK BUYS at It costs taxpayers $3.40 for each can of soda the U.S. passenger railroad sells on its trains,
BUT Amtrak charges $2.00 ONLY in the GOVERNMENT!!!

Using military exercises to boost biofuels. The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
Again... YOU DON"T have a problem paying $27 per gallon for the navy??? Talk about a $500 pipewrench!!!

Conferences for government employees.
In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.


AND YOU LAUGH? YOU must be f...king crazy to want to send money to pay for pig poop studies... paying to study chinese prostitutes -- vietnamese male prostitutes??

And don't forget,

Obama invests $6 billion on 'green'

Daily Kos: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006

THIRTY MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS SPENT ON MANGO FARMERS IN PAKISTAN; Congressman Reed calls expenditure a ridiculous example of waste | Congressman Tom Reed

Federal Government Pays Dead Workers $120 Million A Year: Report

 

[Article 15]

We're whining so that the government will cut it's obscene spending.

You're the ones in favor of it, so you should be the first to whip out the check book in support of your holy government.

Your party is responsible for the spending explosion and blowing up the deficit to begin with.

You mean those 2 wars?

Then yes, I agree with you. On that and all the other stupid things the Republicans have spent our money on. If we have to start cutting spending on useless Republican-sponsored policies, then great - lets start.

When we say "cut government spending" we don't just mean the Democrats.

Two wars, medicare part D, two rounds of tax cuts one of which when we were involved in those two wars. So when you say that "you are the ones in favor of it" you are full of shit. You were in favor of it until a D was in the White House and you thought by pointing the finger at him for the disaster you created you could regain the White House.

 

[tooAlive]

I love the wingnut assumption that if they send extra money to the gov't then the gov't will just increase their spending by exactly that amount but they will create threads like these and call the other side "hypocrites" for not donating to the cause. It's nonsensical and hilarious.

We're operating at a huge deficit.

It doesn't matter how much money we send the government, they always spend more than they take in.

No, they don't "always spend more than they take in".....there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office and it DOES matter how much you send the goverment. If were are operating at a trillion dollar deficit and you decide to send them check for a thousand bucks the deficit goes down to 999,999,999,000 ... the gov't doesn't go "sweet, Joe Asshole just sent us an extra thousand bucks let's use this for new, additional spending".

If the wealthiest Americans "donated" 100% of their income to the govt, they'd have enough money to operate for roughly 3 months. So no, I'm not voluntarily going to give them more in approval of their ridiculous spending when it won't make a speck of a difference.

I want to see action being taken to cut spending.

 

[tooAlive]

Your party is responsible for the spending explosion and blowing up the deficit to begin with.

You mean those 2 wars?

Then yes, I agree with you. On that and all the other stupid things the Republicans have spent our money on. If we have to start cutting spending on useless Republican-sponsored policies, then great - lets start.

When we say "cut government spending" we don't just mean the Democrats.

Two wars, medicare part D, two rounds of tax cuts one of which when we were involved in those two wars. So when you say that "you are the ones in favor of it" you are full of shit. You were in favor of it until a D was in the White House and you thought by pointing the finger at him for the disaster you created you could regain the White House.

The Bush Tax Cuts?

The ones that benefited the middle class and poor as well? The one that His Holiness Obama extended?

Please. What I meant was that (most) democrats keep making excuses for justifying the government's current level of spending. Whether it be left or right wing policies. And the dems have their fair share of deficit blunders as well.

They're both equally guilty of driving this country into a hole.

 

[Staidhup]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

As they say, do as I say not as I do. They know all too well that any personal contribution toward reduction of the national debt or reducing the annual deficit will not make a difference, the key is and was to persuade enough people to believe that by increasing taxes on the rich it would cure what ails the country, which translates into broadening the tax base and shifting the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class, it was never about taxing the rich, the CBO made it clear that regardless of the rate imposed on the "2%" gang it would fail to bridge the gap without tapping into the middle class. So who is the big looser here? They know suckers when they see them, need some proof, look who won the election, look at the voting blocks and how they voted, it was those who pay taxes against those who do not.

 

[Article 15]

You mean those 2 wars?

Then yes, I agree with you. On that and all the other stupid things the Republicans have spent our money on. If we have to start cutting spending on useless Republican-sponsored policies, then great - lets start.

When we say "cut government spending" we don't just mean the Democrats.

Two wars, medicare part D, two rounds of tax cuts one of which when we were involved in those two wars. So when you say that "you are the ones in favor of it" you are full of shit. You were in favor of it until a D was in the White House and you thought by pointing the finger at him for the disaster you created you could regain the White House.

The Bush Tax Cuts?

The ones that benefited the middle class and poor as well? The one that His Holiness Obama extended?

Please. What I meant was that (most) democrats keep making excuses for justifying the government's current level of spending. Whether it be left or right wing policies. And the dems have their fair share of deficit blunders as well.

They're both equally guilty of driving this country into a hole.

Yes, the tax cuts that the GOP passed via reconcilitation with Cheney casting the deciding vote.

Yes, the tax cuts that were extended for everyone because the GOP took the food on struggling Americans tables hostage to keep the cuts for the top bracket.

Yes, those grossly irresponsible tax cuts.

 

[Article 15]

We're operating at a huge deficit.

It doesn't matter how much money we send the government, they always spend more than they take in.

No, they don't "always spend more than they take in".....there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office and it DOES matter how much you send the goverment. If were are operating at a trillion dollar deficit and you decide to send them check for a thousand bucks the deficit goes down to 999,999,999,000 ... the gov't doesn't go "sweet, Joe Asshole just sent us an extra thousand bucks let's use this for new, additional spending".

If the wealthiest Americans "donated" 100% of their income to the govt, they'd have enough money to operate for roughly 3 months. So no, I'm not voluntarily going to give them more in approval of their ridiculous spending when it won't make a speck of a difference.

I want to see action being taken to cut spending.

So why these bullshit "send money to the gov't or you are hypocrites" threads?

If you believe sending the gov't more money wont help why call on other Americans to voluntarily do so? Misguided spite?

Look...no matter how you slice it there are two sides to the budget; revenue and spending...and the deficit can be altered by altering revenue and spending.

Any serious solution to shrink the debt has to both increase revenue and decrease spending. Thinking that they problem can be solved just by addressing one side of the balance sheet is an idea that only works in fantasy land.

 

[Article 15]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

As they say, do as I say not as I do. They know all too well that any personal contribution toward reduction of the national debt or reducing the annual deficit will not make a difference, the key is and was to persuade enough people to believe that by increasing taxes on the rich it would cure what ails the country, which translates into broadening the tax base and shifting the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class, it was never about taxing the rich, the CBO made it clear that regardless of the rate imposed on the "2%" gang it would fail to bridge the gap without tapping into the middle class. So who is the big looser here? They know suckers when they see them, need some proof, look who won the election, look at the voting blocks and how they voted, it was those who pay taxes against those who do not.

Increasing taxes on the top earners is not being offered up as a stand alone silver bullet to fix the deficit. That is a right wing myth.

 

[tooAlive]

No, they don't "always spend more than they take in".....there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office and it DOES matter how much you send the goverment. If were are operating at a trillion dollar deficit and you decide to send them check for a thousand bucks the deficit goes down to 999,999,999,000 ... the gov't doesn't go "sweet, Joe Asshole just sent us an extra thousand bucks let's use this for new, additional spending".

If the wealthiest Americans "donated" 100% of their income to the govt, they'd have enough money to operate for roughly 3 months. So no, I'm not voluntarily going to give them more in approval of their ridiculous spending when it won't make a speck of a difference.

I want to see action being taken to cut spending.

So why these bullshit "send money to the gov't or you are hypocrites" threads?

If you believe sending the gov't more money wont help why call on other Americans to voluntarily do so? Misguided spite?

Look...no matter how you slice it there are two sides to the budget; revenue and spending...and the deficit can be altered by altering revenue and spending.

Any serious solution to shrink the debt has to both increase revenue and decrease spending. Thinking that they problem can be solved just by addressing one side of the balance sheet is an idea that only works in fantasy land.

This thread came to be because Warren Buffet stated how he believed taxes for him weren't high enough, yes his own company owes taxes since 2002.

We're simply saying that if Billionaires like him are complaining of taxes being too low, nothing is stopping them from pulling out their checkbook.

And it's also a bit hypocritical how his company isn't even paying the taxes they owe while he's making these statements.

 

[Article 15]

If the wealthiest Americans "donated" 100% of their income to the govt, they'd have enough money to operate for roughly 3 months. So no, I'm not voluntarily going to give them more in approval of their ridiculous spending when it won't make a speck of a difference.

I want to see action being taken to cut spending.

So why these bullshit "send money to the gov't or you are hypocrites" threads?

If you believe sending the gov't more money wont help why call on other Americans to voluntarily do so? Misguided spite?

Look...no matter how you slice it there are two sides to the budget; revenue and spending...and the deficit can be altered by altering revenue and spending.

Any serious solution to shrink the debt has to both increase revenue and decrease spending. Thinking that they problem can be solved just by addressing one side of the balance sheet is an idea that only works in fantasy land.

This thread came to be because Warren Buffet stated how he believed taxes for him weren't high enough, yes his own company owes taxes since 2002.

We're simply saying that if Billionaires like him are complaining of taxes being too low, nothing is stopping them from pulling out their checkbook.
And it's also a bit hypocritical how his company isn't even paying the taxes they owe while he's making these statements.

Sure, there is.....according to you anyway. You have taken the position that if you send the gov't more money they will just spend it and not use it to decrease the deficit. You've taken the position that they could donate all their income and only operate the gov't for 3 months.

 

[tooAlive]

So why these bullshit "send money to the gov't or you are hypocrites" threads?

If you believe sending the gov't more money wont help why call on other Americans to voluntarily do so? Misguided spite?

Look...no matter how you slice it there are two sides to the budget; revenue and spending...and the deficit can be altered by altering revenue and spending.

Any serious solution to shrink the debt has to both increase revenue and decrease spending. Thinking that they problem can be solved just by addressing one side of the balance sheet is an idea that only works in fantasy land.

This thread came to be because Warren Buffet stated how he believed taxes for him weren't high enough, yes his own company owes taxes since 2002.

We're simply saying that if Billionaires like him are complaining of taxes being too low, nothing is stopping them from pulling out their checkbook.
And it's also a bit hypocritical how his company isn't even paying the taxes they owe while he's making these statements.

Sure, there is.....according to you anyway. You have taken the position that if you send the gov't more money they will just spend it and not use it to decrease the deficit. You've taken the position that they could donate all their income and only operate the gov't for 3 months.

I think you misunderstood me.

I said that no matter how much we send, the government will be at a deficit regardless. Which is why I personally wouldn't send them any more.

That has nothing to do with what I said about Warren Buffet. Since he obviously feels differently about the tax rates, he should send more. But he isn't, and coincidentally owes money. Which makes his charitable statements a bit questionable.

 

[Article 15]

This thread came to be because Warren Buffet stated how he believed taxes for him weren't high enough, yes his own company owes taxes since 2002.

We're simply saying that if Billionaires like him are complaining of taxes being too low, nothing is stopping them from pulling out their checkbook.
And it's also a bit hypocritical how his company isn't even paying the taxes they owe while he's making these statements.

Sure, there is.....according to you anyway. You have taken the position that if you send the gov't more money they will just spend it and not use it to decrease the deficit. You've taken the position that they could donate all their income and only operate the gov't for 3 months.

I think you misunderstood me.

I said that regardless how much we send, the government will be at a deficit regardless. Which is why I personally wouldn't send them any more.

That has nothing to do with what I said about Warren Buffet. Since he obviously feels differently about the tax rates, he should send more. But he isn't, and coincidentally owes money. Which makes his charitable statements a bit questionable.

Pretty much nobody voluntarily sends more. I think I read a story a long time ago about some starry eyed kid sending some of the money he made with his part time job to the gov't for debt reduction but that's about it.

This idea that "if you want to increase taxes then send the gov't more money voluntarily less you be a hypocrite" is nonsensical childs play from partisan morons.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Taxes are already at historic lows.

You actually believe that lie don't you?

Excepting the period between 1988 and 1993, the top tax bracket hasn't been lower since 1931.
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The lowest bracket hasn't been this low since 1941.
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top corporate tax rate has also not been lower - excepting the same 88-93 period - since 1940.

Top Marginal Income, Corporate Tax Rates: 1916-2010 [CHART]

Total government revenue as a share of GDP hasn't been lower since 1950.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



By whatever metric I can find - you are wrong.

 

[healthmyths]

Why don't all you nutters who constantly whine about the deficit and debt donate to the government to cut the deficit or pay down the debt?

As they say, do as I say not as I do. They know all too well that any personal contribution toward reduction of the national debt or reducing the annual deficit will not make a difference, the key is and was to persuade enough people to believe that by increasing taxes on the rich it would cure what ails the country, which translates into broadening the tax base and shifting the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class, it was never about taxing the rich, the CBO made it clear that regardless of the rate imposed on the "2%" gang it would fail to bridge the gap without tapping into the middle class. So who is the big looser here? They know suckers when they see them, need some proof, look who won the election, look at the voting blocks and how they voted, it was those who pay taxes against those who do not.

Increasing taxes on the top earners is not being offered up as a stand alone silver bullet to fix the deficit. That is a right wing myth.

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50% top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.
“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”


Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

 

[jillian]

Increasing taxes on the top earners is not being offered up as a stand alone silver bullet to fix the deficit. That is a right wing myth.

it's not a myth... it's a lie.