Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[Skull Pilot]

I would like to know who these lucky people are, because I pay around 28-30% of my gross every year. And I make nowhere NEAR 200k. They must have a lot of write-offs, or they make shit for wages. My fiance pays between 32-35% of his gross.

Then either you or your accountant doesn't know what you/he is doing.

I'd love to hear your secrets. No, I don't do my own taxes....H&R Block, baby. We're both single, with no dependents. Nothing to really write off. I WILL have a ton of medical bills to write off this April, and for 2012.

Now, to be accurate, this is ALL the taxes that I am paying on a paycheck. But yeah...it's painful. I have to be careful how much overtime I work, because I almost threw myself into a higher tax bracket one year.

We're not talking about the total taxes taken out of your paycheck you idiot.

We're talking about your federal income tax bill as a percentage of your income.

Like I said you don't know anything about taxes so come back after you learn something.

 

[mskafka]

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending

Any person who lost their job or took a pay cut would have cut spending, not increased spending as if they'd received their normal "raise." Spending as a percent of GDP ballooned, that is unacceptable.

I do like how when Bush was actually President liberals were on the floor in a lather that he was spending our children's futures. Now you're saying "It's OK, Obama is spending like Bush."

My biggest issue with Bush, was the tax cut, in 2001. Of course, he had no way of knowing that we were going to have a huge terrorist attack on American soil. Now he and his administration DID know that going to Iraq was a possibility. Not sure why he decided that a tax cut was a good idea, when this was on his agenda. Everyone....myself included, enjoyed the tax cut; but we're still paying for it now, and Obama has continued that policy. But I understand that it is a BAD idea to raise taxes during a massive or any recession.

 

[kaz]

My biggest issue with Bush, was the tax cut, in 2001. Of course, he had no way of knowing that we were going to have a huge terrorist attack on American soil. Now he and his administration DID know that going to Iraq was a possibility. Not sure why he decided that a tax cut was a good idea, when this was on his agenda. Everyone....myself included, enjoyed the tax cut; but we're still paying for it now, and Obama has continued that policy. But I understand that it is a BAD idea to raise taxes during a massive or any recession.

The tax cut was the only good thing he did. Though in typical W fashion he undercut a lot of the benefit as he made the tax code more complex. But W sucked. The reality is that government revenue grows with tax cuts because people spend less time and effort avoiding taxes and just pay them. And they grow the economy which means deficits are a smaller portion of GDP. It's not just economic theory, all empirical data supports it. The reason you don't hear that is the left uses taxes for class warfare and it's counter to their agenda.

 

[Flopper]

so the president hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from george washington to bill clinton?

no

During George Bush's term in office he increased the debt from about 5 trillion to 10 trillion up 100%.

During H.W. Bush's term in office he increased the debt 50%.

During Reagan term in office he pushed debt up 180%.

When Obama took office the national debt stood at about 10 trillion and will probably be 16 at end of his first term, up 60%. When you consider that most of this spending increase was due to the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession, he has done quite well at controlling spending as compared to recent Republican presidents.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[mskafka]

Then either you or your accountant doesn't know what you/he is doing.

I'd love to hear your secrets. No, I don't do my own taxes....H&R Block, baby. We're both single, with no dependents. Nothing to really write off. I WILL have a ton of medical bills to write off this April, and for 2012.

Now, to be accurate, this is ALL the taxes that I am paying on a paycheck. But yeah...it's painful. I have to be careful how much overtime I work, because I almost threw myself into a higher tax bracket one year.

We're not talking about the total taxes taken out of your paycheck you idiot.

We're talking about your federal income tax bill as a percentage of your income.

Like I said you don't know anything about taxes so come back after you learn something.

Oh, I'm an idiot. So you're another one of those. I thought you were a reasonable person, and have even commended some of your comments. So if you're an expert on taxes, Greenspan, what else do you know about?

I'll bet that you're a complete moron about the pH balance. Do you know what an inferior myocardial infarction is? Have you ever seen necrotizing fasciitis? Organomegaly? Do you know how to infuse a dopamine drip? Do you know the dosage of narcan for narcotic overdoses (something you might be familiar with)? Know a normal blood glucose range?
Do you know the ventricular fibrillation algorithim? Standard congestive heart failure treatment protocol? Familiar with nasal atomizers? Know which drugs crystallize which IV fluids? What the first joule setting for defibrillation? Do you know the difference between cardioversion and defibrillation?

How does an abdominal aortic aneurysm present? What's the difference between an embolic, ischemic, and hemmorhagic CVA?

Yah....I'm an idiot. Try again, sweetpea. I'm trying to understand something, and you're being an asshole about it.

My federal tax bracket is 25%, per the IRS. So what exactly am I confused about, Bernanke?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd love to hear your secrets. No, I don't do my own taxes....H&R Block, baby. We're both single, with no dependents. Nothing to really write off. I WILL have a ton of medical bills to write off this April, and for 2012.

Now, to be accurate, this is ALL the taxes that I am paying on a paycheck. But yeah...it's painful. I have to be careful how much overtime I work, because I almost threw myself into a higher tax bracket one year.

We're not talking about the total taxes taken out of your paycheck you idiot.

We're talking about your federal income tax bill as a percentage of your income.

Like I said you don't know anything about taxes so come back after you learn something.

Oh, I'm an idiot.

Yes you are

So you're another one of those. I thought you were a reasonable person, and have even commended some of your comments. So if you're an expert on taxes, Greenspan, what else do you know about?

i have been self employed most of my adult life and I was a financial planner for quite a few years so I would say I know more about taxes than the average person and I definitely know more than you

I'll bet that you're a complete moron about the pH balance

.

pH balance of what? The human body optimally runs slightly alkaline at a pH of just under 7.5

Do you know what an inferior myocardial infarction is?

Commonly called a heart attack

Have you ever seen necrotizing fasciitis?

usually a staph infection of some sort

Organomegaly?

Enlarged organs

Do you know how to infuse a dopamine drip?

Via an IV. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter invloved in emotional responses such as pleasure and pain among other things

Do you know the dosage of narcan for narcotic overdoses (something you might be familiar with)?

I don't need to know but I'm sure I could look it up.

Know a normal blood glucose range?

between 70 and 100

Do you know the ventricular fibrillation algorithim?

Don't need to know but again I'm quite sure I could look it up

Standard congestive heart failure treatment protocol?

ibid

Familiar with nasal atomizers?

Do you mean nebulizers. yes

Know which drugs crystallize which IV fluids? What the first joule setting for defibrillation? Do you know the difference between cardioversion and defibrillation?

How does an abdominal aortic aneurysm present? What's the difference between an embolic, ischemic, and hemmorhagic CVA?

Yah....I'm an idiot. Try again, sweetpea. I'm trying to understand something, and you're being an asshole about it.

My federal tax bracket is 25%, per the IRS. So what exactly am I confused about, Bernanke?

Medical jargon does not impress me. the few obscure things you mention I could look up in about 30 seconds.

You're the one who has been trying to tell us that you pay 35% of your gross in taxes.

It is simply untrue so you are obviously confused regarding the difference between withholding and taxes and all you had to do was look it up.

 

[ilia25]

Man, I love all these new posters!

you would, did you bring them over from thinkprogress?

Just FYI, I am not progressive. For example, I hate trade unions, I think they should be outlawed. And I supported going to war in Iraq.

But, unlike most Republicans, a am not going to declare war on arithmetic. The numbers tell a clear story -- Republicans had been lying about Obama's big government, and they are telling those lies primarily to their voters. They treat them as a bunch of idiots.

 

[ilia25]

The only explosion of spending has been the WELFARE we've give the BANSTERS.

And BOTH PARTIES are in on that scam.

Actually that is not true. TARP was not a welfare, it was a loan, most of which which was returned with interest. So in the end the cost to the taxpayers was pretty much nothing.

 

[theHawk]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Clearly, by your own cited chart, spending did go up. The fact that the spending went up during the recession, as well as the fact that we borrowed even more money than ever, adds to the fact that Obama spent WAY too much compared to how much revenue was coming in. Dems can't fathom making spending cuts (unless its military), so he just borrowed more to cover the costs. He proved that he doesn't give a flying **** about the future generations that will have to pay off his greedy big government needs.

 

[ilia25]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Spending has increased. you're not denying that are you?

Of course not -- it has been increasing exponentially since forever. But that is not what Obama is being accused of by Republicans. They say that the growth under Obama was much faster than usual.

And I would call a nearly trillion dollar increase an explosion of spending and debt

Yes, and that is another way to pull a fast one -- by saying things like "explosion of spending and debt". Because yes, there WAS an explosion in debt. But there was NO explosion in spending.

 

[ilia25]

Clearly, by your own cited chart, spending did go up. The fact that the spending went up during the recession, as well as the fact that we borrowed even more money than ever, adds to the fact that Obama spent WAY too much compared to how much revenue was coming in.

Except that the spending MUST go up during the recession for many important reasons. Some lose jobs, so the government has to pay the unemployment. Others become so poor that they have to rely on food stamps.

If you are serious about your suggestion that the government must cut its spending, why don't you tell us which department or program the government was supposed to kill? Should we stop paying for our military? Or stop sending the social security checks?

Another reason the government should INCREASE spending is because the reason we have a recession in the first place is that consumers reduce their expenditures. The economists call it "paradox of thrift" -- if everyone in the economy tries to save in order to reduce their indebtedness, everyone income falls so it becomes even harder to pay of the debt.

If Obama tried to reduce the government spending it would simply lead to an economic collapse.

 

[ilia25]

Any person who lost their job or took a pay cut would have cut spending

Yes, it works for a single household, but the same policy would lead to a disaster when applied to the whole economy in a recession. Everyone cannot increase their savings (or reduce their debt) at the same time -- because someone's income is another person's spending. If everyone spends less, everyone receive less income and if everyone would continue down this road, soon everyone will have zero income. And just so you know, zero income means you would starve to death.

So when a recession happens the government must NOT reduce its spending, on the contrary, it should try to increase it. And it should pay for it by borrowing the money that others are saving.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Any person who lost their job or took a pay cut would have cut spending

Yes, it works for a single household, but the same policy would lead to a disaster when applied to the whole economy in a recession. Everyone cannot increase their savings (or reduce their debt) at the same time -- because someone's income is another person's spending. If everyone spends less, everyone receive less income and if everyone would continue down this road, soon everyone will have zero income. And just so you know, zero income means you would starve to death.

So when a recession happens the government must NOT reduce its spending, on the contrary, it should try to increase it. And it should pay for it by borrowing the money that others are saving.

 

[merrill]

For the past 30 years republicans have been the biggest spenders in the history of the USA. That is why they are known as liberal spenders and promoters of debt aka borrow and spend.

Case in point:

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

* Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

* Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.
Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[Skull Pilot]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Spending has increased. you're not denying that are you?

Of course not -- it has been increasing exponentially since forever. But that is not what Obama is being accused of by Republicans. They say that the growth under Obama was much faster than usual.

And I would call a nearly trillion dollar increase an explosion of spending and debt

Yes, and that is another way to pull a fast one -- by saying things like "explosion of spending and debt". Because yes, there WAS an explosion in debt. But there was NO explosion in spending.

So what did they do with that borrowed money?

They spent it. If there was a debt explosion and all that debt was used for spending then why not call it a spending explosion as well?

 

[bripat9643]

So the President hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from George Washington to Bill Clinton?

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

Wrong again. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Obama has been in office for only 3 years. By the time Obama has served 8 years, we will have borrowed far more than all the presidents before him.

 

[bripat9643]

For the past 30 years republicans have been the biggest spenders in the history of the USA. That is why they are known as liberal spenders and promoters of debt aka borrow and spend.

Horseshit:

 

[mskafka]

We're not talking about the total taxes taken out of your paycheck you idiot.

We're talking about your federal income tax bill as a percentage of your income.

Like I said you don't know anything about taxes so come back after you learn something.

Oh, I'm an idiot.

Yes you are

i have been self employed most of my adult life and I was a financial planner for quite a few years so I would say I know more about taxes than the average person and I definitely know more than you

.

pH balance of what? The human body optimally runs slightly alkaline at a pH of just under 7.5




Commonly called a heart attack




usually a staph infection of some sort


Enlarged organs

Via an IV. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter invloved in emotional responses such as pleasure and pain among other things lol

[/QUOTE]I don't need to know but I'm sure I could look it up.[/QUOTE]
Of course you don't. Because you will never get sick and will live forever.


[/QUOTE] between 70 and 100[/QUOTE]

You're patients would be pretty weak, if you were caring for them.


[/QUOTE]Don't need to know but again I'm quite sure I could look it up.[/QUOTE]


ibid

Familiar with nasal atomizers? Do you mean nebulizers.

(uhm, no. not even close)

Know which drugs crystallize which IV fluids? What the first joule setting for defibrillation? Do you know the difference between cardioversion and defibrillation?

How does an abdominal aortic aneurysm present? What's the difference between an embolic, ischemic, and hemmorhagic CVA?

[/QUOTE]Medical jargon does not impress me.

the few obscure things you mention I could look up in about 30 seconds. (obscure? Like taxes are to me?)[/QUOTE]

Being a know-it-all impresses no one, but you seem to have that down to an artform.

[/QUOTE]You're the one who has been trying to tell us that you pay 35% of your gross in taxes.[/QUOTE]

(No, I didn't tell "us" that I pay 35% of my gross in taxes. My fiance pays about that. Of course, he grosses 3 times what I gross. I never said that. ******* liar!)

[/QUOTE]It is simply untrue so you are obviously confused regarding the difference between withholding and taxes and all you had to do was look it up.[/QUOTE]

(I'm not impressed by "tax jargon", because it's as exciting as watch paint dry...probably as exciting as you are.)

The human body's normal pH is between two EXACT numbers. Much more or less will kill you. 7.5..hmmm
Nasal atomizers-wrong.
Glucose-your numbers are a little off there, bud.
Dopamine-Obviously have no idea what it's used for in a medical setting-like renal failure, non-hypovolemic shock.
Necrotizing fasciitis-LMAO. Thank goodness for google search engine, huh? It's a sight to behold.

[/QUOTE]Yah, I'm sure that you could look it up in 30 seconds and know exactly what it all means[/QUOTE] Quite sure of yourself, when it took the rest of us years to figure it out. Now THAT is delusional.

So you're a financial advisor? I hope that you don't talk to your clients like you have me. If so, I'll bet your office is very quiet during the day. You need to take your midol and chill out.

I'm in the 20's tax bracket. Fiance is in the 30's tax bracket-and I seem to recall saying 30-35%....not simply 35%.

So, you're so much smarter than I? How come you don't know all the questions I posted above, without having to use a search engine? It's because you're smart in one area, and I'm smart in another. Which baffles me as to why so many of you think that someone is an "idiot" if they don't understand your job. What you attended a very expensive school for.

So you understand taxes, and all the numbers....but what do you know about anything else?
You have a day coming when you will have to rely on others (like healthcare providers) to take care of you. It would be ill-advised to call them idiots.

There are a lot more financial planners in this world than there are physicians. Why? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's a bit more complex than taxes. (I'm a paramedic, so I won't pretend to possess their knowledge. But I can access an IV in your jugular vein; as can all paramedics. Would you have the stomach for that, financial planner?)

You started this conversation looking for an argument, like a child on a playground, bullying the fat kid. You had no interest in answering questions. Wishing you had done something more exciting with your life, do you? You've earned these insults, buddy boy. It's not my fault that you are displeased with your life; or seem to be. Otherwise, you wouldn't use Limbaugh caliber insults.

There's more to this world than taxes, capital....but because it isn't in your self-interest, I suspect that you're willing to vote for a president who will further endanger the USA, by continuing to piss off the Middle East. But hopefully not.

I tried to engage you last night. One of my good friends is one of the assistant professors at Boston University School of Medicine. I'm such an idiot, I keep idiotic company.

Good luck with your hate.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Good thread, shows that both parties are wild and out of control with their spending, not just democrats.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

The only "lie" here is using the term "explosion" to characterize the spending.
The part about spending increases, borrowed money and adding trillions to the debt are all true.

But. rather than focus on that truth, we'll just attack Republicans.