Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy

CRedskinsRule

So, when I used the chart as a simple way to highlight the difference between Bush's outrageous spending, and Obama's Outrageous spending in response to dmek, it reasonably demonstrated my point.

saden1

It doesn't because it is deceptive. For one thing it is meaningless and secondly like I stated in my previous post Bush's last budget proposal was ~1.3 trillion dollars. These budgets aren't as disjoint as your "point" would have you believe.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

firstdown

F them all because they all spend too much money. Even back when Newt/ Clinton had a surplus they were still spending too much money. This is not a party problem this is a goverment problem which starts with the federal goverment all the way down to city goverment. F them all.

saden1

It most certainly won't. Cuts in spending alone won't cut it, the rich will have to cough up some dough too.


Going above 100% GDP is definitely going to be problematic. The wealth of a nation can't be spent on paying your debt.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

firstdown

Why the rich how about the 40 plus % that pay nothing.

saden1

I agree, screw the large catholic families and take away their child tax credit. 25% flat tax across the board anyone?

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

firstdown

25% seems high. That means I have to work 3 months for the goverment. I'll revert back to tis post I made earlier.

F them all because they all spend too much money. Even back when Newt/ Clinton had a surplus they were still spending too much money. This is not a party problem this is a goverment problem which starts with the federal goverment all the way down to city goverment. F them all.

Slingin Sammy 33

If the gov't goes to the FairTax yes, 25% until we're back in the black. Then revert to around 22% or so.

I didn't know it was the Catholics who were screwing the gov't with the child tax credit all along that put us in this mess.

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

firstdown

The child tax credit is not that much money compared to the cost of a child.

saden1

It worked for my boy's dad. Had him five kids paid absolutely zero taxes for 40 years. I mean, we got to get away from encouraging credit for kids. I got zero kids and my effective tax rate 25%. What's your effective tax rate?

On behalf of all single people I accept the gratitude of all catholics with baby mama's and 3 kids :p

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

saden1

These are life choices you made and the problem is the more kids you have the more credit you get. You shouldn't be rewarded for having more kids.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

CRedskinsRule

Agreed

firstdown

For him to pay zero in tax then he must have been low income and actually received a tax credit because he was low income. There is a limit that a family can claim no matter how many kids they have. I think its capped at $6000 so if they are in a 25% tax bracket then they can reduce their tax liability by $1500. Its not really that big of a tax break.

Now if your boy is consider low income they get a tax credit even if they did not pay taxes. So if your boy did not have to pay any taxes then claimed his child then he could actually get a refund and not paid a penny into the system. Thats the screwed up part if you ask me. You pay zero federal tax over the year but you get a child tax credit and get back like $1200 for up to 2 or 3 children. Not sure how many you can claim because back in the 90's it was capped but that cap could have been removed.