Obama wants more taxes

"So where did all that sweet stimulus money go? Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions – those with already locked-in jobs. In fact, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. Where Democrats had a vast majority of representatives, their states got $460 per person more."

"
Rich Democrat donors also got payback. The farcical "green" energy company Solyndra defaulted on more than half a billion dollars of our money, while Obama mega-donor George Kaiser finagled his interest ahead of ours. Other beneficiaries of Obama's largesse for dubious deals include Larry Page and Sergey Brin (if you Google them you will find they founded Google) for Tesla Motors, NRG Solar owners Warren Buffet and Steve Cohen, and Siga Tech owner Ronald Pearlman. All told, more than 75 percent of stimulus grants and money for such "businesses" found their way to big Obama supporters.

Even creepy crony capitalist of the century Al Gore got his snout in the trough. His investment in Fisker Automotive scored a $528 million loan guarantee. Can you imagine the risks you could take if you were given $528 million that you were not personally on the hook for? Of course all these businesses are tanking or have tanked already."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stimulus-501352-money-obama.html
 
loyek590 said:
you sure about that? Wasn't the sequester the only sensible thing the government has done for the last six years. And it was bipartisan, and the president signed it. What more do you want? Isn't that government working the way it should?
More...
NO!
 
piezoe said:
NO!
More...
ok Mr. Snarky, thoughtful reply. Both parties agreed we needed to cut spending, and when we finally do you don't like it. Let me guess, you only want to cut "their" spending but not cut "your" spending.
 
re: sequester

We've got a huge part of the gov't that is on automatic pilot to increase every year, and somehow that's not considered dangerous. But if you put in place a program to cut spending if certain conditions are not met, that's supposed to be regarded as a catastrophe.

The left hopes you buy into that kind of groupthink.
 
fhl said:
re: sequester

We've got a huge part of the gov't that is on automatic pilot to increase every year, and somehow that's not considered dangerous. But if you put in place a program to cut spending if certain conditions are not met, that's supposed to be regarded as a catastrophe.

The left hopes you buy into that kind of groupthink.
More...

I'd say at least 25% minimum is wasted $$$ spent by government. Many employees who just coast each day, have little to do. But the reality is once they have their budget it's virtually impossible to see any reduction. It was similar in some corporate entities. Use it or lose it and near the end of the year departments would spend on whatever just to justify the budget for that year and then ask for more the following year. Odumbo could raise the $$$ he's seeking by resorting to cuts in the inefficiencies rather than yet again wanting to raise taxes.
 
fhl said:
re: sequester

We've got a huge part of the gov't that is on automatic pilot to increase every year, and somehow that's not considered dangerous. But if you put in place a program to cut spending if certain conditions are not met, that's supposed to be regarded as a catastrophe.

The left hopes you buy into that kind of groupthink.
More...
no kidding, I'm all for borrowing and spending when rates are low, provided you have something worthwhile to spend it on. We've spent it on healthcare, education and infrastructure (not to mention alternative energy) and what are the greatest problems facing the USA today?
1. Healthcare
2. Education
3. Infrastructure
4. Energy

so if you want a major problem, just let the government spend money on it
 
this written prospectively but it lists many of the reasons sequester was good.
I think the biggest one is that no on felt it except a few cronies and a few programs the govt targeted to let everyone know. I think we should keep cutting and make govt re organize until we feel it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ster_will_be_good_for_the_economy_117232.html



My colleague Alberto Alesina and his co-authors, for example, have demonstrated that substantial expenditure cuts do not consistently cause output declines, in contradiction to the Keynesian model. Instead, such “fiscal consolidations” result in minor or no short-term output losses and substantial long-term output gains, as the cost-benefit view would suggest.

Thus the main problem with the sequester is that it is too small; it will reduce the deficit only slightly and scale back misguided government only a little.



Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ood_for_the_economy_117232.html#ixzz3QcDJ7h2e
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
 
hey man, it's all money, how much they take from me, how much they take for themselves, and how much they give to you.

You don't really need an ideology if you can operate a calculator. Type in the numbers, if there is a plus, government is good, if it goes negative government is expensive. Don't tell me about the poor, the sick, and the crumbling infrastructure, just tell me how much it costs. But whatever problem comes up, I am sure it will be because of sequester, or not enough money in general. Hey, I have had problems in my life, and they were all caused by not enough money. Problems and money just go hand in hand, there is always too much of one and not enough of the other. That's just the way of the world. It would be easier for man to change the climate than it would be to change the fact that most have too many problems and not enough money.
 
Paul Ryan's First Tax Legislation Adds Nearly $100 Billion To Deficit
Posted: 02/04/2015 3:08 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- The first bills promoted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as the new chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee would add nearly $100 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

Ryan, a deficit hawk during his time as the chairman of the Budget Committee for the previous six years, made his fame proposing budgets that aimed to dramatically cut domestic spending and balance the budget within a decade.

But in his first legislative act as head of the committee that will be central to expected tax reform efforts over the next two years, Ryan pushed through a package of seven tax cut bills that would add $93.5 billion to the deficit in the next decade.

The largest, a measure that lets small business write off expenses more quickly, would add $77 billion to the deficit.

Other measures would allow companies to inflate the value of food donations (including things like old Twinkies), make it easier to donate retirement savings, and conserve land, among other things.

Although Republicans generally require new expenses to be paid for by cuts elsewhere in the budget, they don't when it comes to tax cuts. As a result, none of the proposed measures came along with savings from another portion of the budget.

More >>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top