Montana, those figures have been put out there, look them up. As a real American and a member of the middle class, I will be willing to pay more taxes. It is my country and I love it.

Yeah, and claim he is a capitalist! BS!

You couldn’t discover your own ass with two hands and a flashlight.

Just stop your whoppers and admit that your argument is just a bag of hot gas. ANY increase in revenue is better than NO increase in revenue, just like ANY decrease in spending is better than NO decrease in spending. Add to that the fact that you are lying about the numbers, and we can see that you are just another greedy, tax-slurping deadbeat who wants a free ride. Well, you won’t get it.

Got it?

For starters, ending two ‘hot’ wars that were unfunded ($808 billion for Iraq, $570 billion for Afghanistan) is a pretty decrease in expenditures. Of course we don’t know exactly what these wars would cost over the NEXT 10 years, but suffice it to say that it would buy a lot of donuts — even in your unhappy donut shop.

So let’s see: $1.028 trillion that Obama ALREADY cut via the 2011 Budget Control Act. I know you’d probably like to argue with the numbers, but it IS step in the right direction.n Next the proposed cuts of about $680 billion along with interest savings on the whole deal.

Now, I know that you pooh-pooh the revenue generated by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top income brackets, but that’s about $850 billion over 10 years. Another $100 billion+ could be saved over the same period by restoring estate and gift taxes and closing other miscellaneous loopholes.

Does this alone solve our fiscal worries? No, of course it doesn’t — and that’s just a testament to what a mess the GOP ‘fiscal conservatives’ have put this country into. We don’t need more of the same ‘fiscal conservatism’ that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades from Republicans.

Another important point is that the economy isn’t strong enough yet to take more drastic measure on either the revenue or expenditure side. Economists know that we need to be growing at a much healthier clip before doing something like, say. letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire.

So you don’t like higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans? Tough noogies — they’ve made out like bandits for long enough. The only reason that you can claim an increase in the tax burden of the upper 2% is because of the ASTRONOMICAL increase in wealth distribution over the last few decades to a level not seen since the 1920′s.

So the jig is up in this respect: Nobody is falling for the ‘hallowed job creators’ argument. The wealthy do NOT create jobs at the same rate that their wealth grows, and we’ve seen that perfectly demonstrated by the Bush Tax Cuts. If the ‘wealthy-need-tax-cuts-to-create-jobs’ argument was true, we would be swimming in jobs today — but we aren’t. Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the upper 2% is one of the least economically detrimental ways to increase revenue that we need to start addressing our deficits and debt. It’s not that much, you say? Fine, then perhaps you should argue a tax increase BEYOND letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. The Lord knows that the wealthy are paying the lowest rates in a LONG time.

I Hope He Know He’s Talking To A Troll!! They Are Only Here To Act A Fool I Doubt Any Of Them Own Nothing They Might Know Some One Who May Own Something But Believe Me None Of These Trolls Own Anything!! And I Doubt Any Of Them Have A Job Cause Clearly You Can See They Have No Lives!!!

I’m going to put an end to your bullshit story right now:

President Obama holds the record for the LOWEST annualized growth in federal spending in the last 30 years. That’s right LOWER than the growth under Reagan (8.7% 1st term, 4.9% 2nd term), LOWER than Bush I (5.4%), LOWER than Clinton (3.2% 1st term, 3.9% 2nd term, and LOWER than Bush II (7.3% 1st term, 8.1% 2nd term).

I’m sure you’d like to falsely accuse Obama for the 2009 budget, however, that was put in place by none other than G.W. Bush — and it was in effect starting October 2008 — 4 months before Obama’s inauguration (that’s the start of the federal fiscal year).

Here are the CORRECT growth rates for the budgets that Obama was actually responsible for thus far:

2010: -1.8%
2011: +4.3%
2012: +0.7%

If you include projections for fiscal year 2013, Obama’s 1st term annualized spending growth rate would be around 0.4%.

Not only is Obama’s federal spending growth LOWER than any of the Republican Presidents in the last 30 years, but BOTH Democrat Presidents had a LOWER annualized spending growth rate than ALL of the Republican Presidents. Reagan was the king of annualized federal spending growth at 8.7% in his 1st term (remember Star Wars or SDI?), with Bush a close runner-up at 8.1% in his 2nd term (the same term where he nearly hurled the country into another Great Depression).

So why is it that people like you lie about Obama’s spending until your tongue nearly bursts into flame?

“We are not ‘swimming in jobs’ because of Obama” – Who do you think you’re fooling? EVERYBODY knows that the massive loss of jobs began during the Bush administration. Trying to blame that economic disaster on Obama is not just a lie — it’s a stupid lie (because everyone knows better).

The wealthiest 2% have seen ENORMOUS wealth gains over the last few decades because they have had the biggest breaks and economic advantages. If you increase your income by 100%, you can’t plead poverty by citing a 5% tax increase. But that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. The tax burden went up slightly on the top 2% ONLY because their share of the wealth increased by HISTORICAL proportions. As I said before, it’s the biggest disparity since the 1920′s.

So just stop lying. Assuming your home state is Montana (given your moniker), even your state sucks up an oversized share of federal aid while simultaneously being chock-full of liars who blame liberals for ‘handouts’ — all the while slurping up tax dollars from the ‘liberal’ (or so-called blue) states.

It’s time for you to come up with a different story. Why don’t you just come clean, admit that you’re a greedy deadbeat, and be done with it?

Cheney was a ‘former’ CEO of Haliburton. I’m sure if you can prove Haliburton cheated the U.S., you would be entitled to recovery share. If not, you are a rumor monger. I suspect they might have, but I can’t prove it so I can’t accuse them.
Did any of the ‘green energy’ deals bother you?

The ‘leftist freaks’ have been paying more taxes than you right-wing, knuckle-dragging bigots for years. Everyone knows the ‘red’ states slurp up a disproportionate share of federal assistance.

Why don’t you people learn to walk upright already?

Oh yes, keep quoting the ‘Champion of Runaway Federal Spending’ (Reagan) to make your points. You need to add Reagan’s 11 tax increases and strong support for gun control to your quotes.

You want to go back to the Clinton era. I’m willing, just so long as the budget also returns to Clinton era spending.

These kinds of questions always remind me of trying to excuse bad behavior by pointing the somebody else’s behavior, but so be it.

You do remember 9/11. That hit the economy pretty hard, as history will bear out. Then Bush got the tax cuts passed and the following year saw a record revenue for the government and the economy had recovered to pre-9/11 levels. At that point things went south. Bush went after the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan. It was also feared that Hussein was giving aid and comfort while trying to create WMD’s. He would not let nuclear inspectors do their job and he had used poison gas on the Kurds. His actions had bi-partisan approval. Democrats took control of the Congress. Bush took the military actions off the books, which should not have happened. Democrats approved these actions and upped the push for ‘affordable housing’ and sub-prime loans and thwarted efforts to stop this madness before the bubble exploded. Explode it did. Boom. Big deficit. But not nearly as big as it was going to get in the next four years.

I wouldn’t classify my synopsis as excusing Bush. It was as it was. Obama had two years of absolute control and he used it pushing through a stimulus that was miss directed, more bail-outs for the financial industry, law violating auto industry bail-outs, and an healthcare bill that we as a country will pay dearly for. No budgets have been passed for three years. Our annual deficits nearly equal Clinton’s entire annual budget. He excels at making speeches, so that has been the hallmark of his Presidency. Very few press conferences and almost no questions at the few held. He has significantly extended and expanded entitlement programs, which do little more than enslave people.

Montana, the first day of the first session the house sets the voting rules. And they set the rules for 60 votes to pass anything and then they misused the filibuster where one man can hold up the entire congress. Obama never had the backing you like to claim he had.

Any amount is “Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!” As for where it will go….? I know where it WON’T go…IRAQ !

montanabill, so you think it all added up when we got tax cuts and increased military spending for two wars basically on credit.

And how much did the unfunded Prescription Drug Program cost?

The national deficit AND debt would not have increased so fast without Republican mismanagement. GW Bush is your deficit/debt hero — not only increasing federal spending by 17% during his tenure but tanking the economy as well. This 1, 2 punch is the primary cause of the recent spike in both deficits AND debt. If Bush hadn’t started 2 unfunded wars and wrecked the economy, then tax revenue would be much higher and deficits much lower.

Republican Presidents are the undisputed kings of runaway federal spending, and the increases that Obama’s policies are actually responsible for are less than any Republican President in the last 30 years.

So what you’re trying to say is that Barney Frank wrecked the US economy, and the $2.5+ trillion cost of unfunded wars and $955 billion in tax cut revenue losses actually HELPED our economy, correct? Have you been eating magic beans again? The reason I ask is because you seem to be arguing out your ass again, and the arguments stink.

I’ll bet Barney Frank will be impressed to learn how he single-handedly caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. He probably thought it had something to do with risky and predatory lending practices, but now you have taught us it’s not the lenders’ fault — bless their innocent little hearts. And the Iraq and Afghanistan wars actually REDUCED the debt, yes?

If you are trying to sell us that steaming load of crap I wouldn’t entrust you with running a lemonade stand — so I guess you’d better keep your dusty old CV (resume).

Montana, Montana…. how many times have I told you that these leftist freaks in here don’t like Obozo’s record shoved in their faces?

Merry Christmas, my friend!

“The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

what…. I see you’ve been hitting the crack pipe yet again. Shame. Obozo has had the biggest deficits in the history of the world 4 years running. Obozo has added $6TRILLION to the national debt. Any moron that can read numbers and did not smoke crack knows this.

Merry Christmas and have a nice high!

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the DemonRATS believe every day is April 15.” – Ronald Reagan

what… maybe you’re not smoking crack? Most likely shooting heroine. Lets look at how this roles:

1) Obozo comes into office, national debt about $10.3 TRILLION.

2) Obozo voted for the 08-09 budget AND voted for TARP

3) Obozo’s first act was to pass so-called “stimulus package” of neary $1TRILLION

4) Obozo, with control of Congress for 2 years, passes a grand totla of ZERO budgets.

5) Obozo baselined into annual spending his “stimulus” amount

6) Obozo finishes 4 years, national debt at $16+TRILLION

Now, by normal people math, that’s an increase of about $6TRILLION in debt, or about 60% growth in spending.

And all of Obozo’s spending has been done with nearly ZERO economic growth. As opposed to Reagan who grew the economy on average over 5% per year and with tax cuts exploded revenue into the federal coffers, which Tip O’Neill was more than happy to spend. By the way, old Tip bald-faced lied to Reagan when he got him to agree to some minor tax hikes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. Reagan’s biggest mistake was believing old Tip.

Just because you think everyone is a stupid as you to believe that because Obozo starts his term with a first year deficit at over $1.5 TRILLION and then keeps is stable, that this is somehow responsible is not only laughable, but downright sad. How can you be that stupid? Really, dude. I’d say you were as dumb as a rock, but I’d be insulting rocks.

Merry Christmas!

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” — Milton Friedman

what… now I am certain you are shooting heroine. It’s simple math. On Obozo’s watch he took the national debt from $10TRILLION to $16TRILLION. That’s an increase of $6TRILLION in real people math. Heroine addict math may be different, but it’s not real. It’s heroine addict math.

Have a nice high, and remain oblivious, you fool!

Merry Christmas!

“The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

REALITY? REALLY….I can do the math. Just which Republican version of hocus pocus, voodoo economic math do want me to apply. SO, here is your chance to defend yourself against the responses I’ve seen today against you, as a business owner. When you had your
business, or still have, do/did you pay your employees a decent wage that they could support a family on? Because here is the REALITY of those you seem to want to be like, worship, vote for, side with. They, use many examples, Walmart, for starters, and just about any other fortune 500 company in America operate on simple rules. Pay the people, who do most of the work, and that there are the most of, the LEAST, or as they say, “Whatever the market can bear” (loosely translated means keep them on min. wage and poor) [in "true capitalist" fashion] to help undermine and keep control as they fight like dogs for the scraps off the table. And pay your executive level EXPONENTIALLY higher wages, way more than they are possibly worth. Not because they work harder, but because they are the ELITE they have chosen. And no matter how much those little worker bees produce…..DO NOT share the HONEY with THEM. Or else they may gain some financial power and bite you. The bigger the company the uglier and more evil the game. Blame all your woes and issues on those beligerent 47% freeloaders, while they, themselves, (CORPORATIONS) seek every gov’t assistance, created just for them, by them. And pay others to convince those lowly little worker bees to vote against their own best interest.
As for what I am hearing …. TAX the rich more and JOBs will disappear…….WHAT A BUNCH of BULL SH*T !!!! Those “job creators” have had ALL advantages for 12 years now and where has it gotten us….Well let’s see….those job creators have way bigger Cayman Island and Swiss accounts. And the Chinese continue to get more jobs at less than $2.00 hr. Oh and also, those same PLUTOCRATS will go away to other Countries……MY A$$! I say GO…..they’re ruining our country anyways. But they won’t go…even with a tax hike they won’t go. DO YOU KNOW WHAT kind of taxes rate rich people pay in other Countries? And those that don’t have HUGE taxes, are countries they don’t want to spend time in or BAIN HQ would be in Zimbabwe. The RICH have it made here or they would have left a long time ago. First ones that start leaving better be packing lots of HEAT, because other country’s citizenry is not as law abiding as ours.

Well Bill, you ARE in a class by yourself. I have to take you at your words here and I salute you for doing right by your employees. You seem to be creditting your employees for much of your success. You sound really sincere about it and that makes you, as an owner, a rareity, in my experience. So I can’t understand then, why are you a Republican. You seem to care about people and the GOP has done nothing for small business since George Sr.

Exactly — like which party grew the federal spending levels the most over the last 30 years (Republican). Right?

It must be rather annoying for you when actual FACTS get in the way of your arguments, yes?

I guess that you don’t believe your lying eyes, right? I suppose you too look at a President who holds the record for runaway federal spending, increased taxes 11 times, and vigorously supported gun control (Ronald Reagan) as your conservative hero as well, yes?

Yes, yes — please quote Reagan, who is the 30-year king of runaway federal spending, raised taxes 11 times, and supported gun control.

My taxes are going up 3.6% regardless because of Obamacare. And you are right, I would prefer that my taxes don’t go up.

However, you still ducked the questions.

William, the middleclass are the consumers. When they are gone, so are the consumers and taxpayers.

You wealthy folks out there should have these taxes paid retroactively! Just been sucking from the community teat for the last 10 years now, haven’t you?

Stop lying, you tax-slurping freeloader. We all know better. You wouldn’t have a pot to piss in if you weren’t the beneficiary of the generosity of generations of Americans who didn’t squeal like stuck pigs when their turn came to pay their share.

I have not only put in my share but shares for all of the current and past employees I have had. I don’t need SS. I understood what it was back when I was 17 and have always planned to be sure I wouldn’t need it. I was free to be independent of SS while I was still working for someone else.

Which FEI are you referring to:
1) the world leader in electron microscopy technologies, or
2) international governing body for all Olympic equestrian disciplines (I know a little about them)
3) a leading association for senior level finance executives.
Why is any of them pertinent?

Further, why would I care about Galambos? As far as I know, his writings didn’t have a bearing on tax policy nor are they part of the current financial problems this country is having.

You continue to duck, as I might add, has every single person who responded. It is pretty clear, there is a lot of ignorance associated with Obama’s ‘tax the rich’ crap.

I suppose it is nice to have theories, but we have a couple of hundred years of capitalism experience to draw from. Many of us have learned first hand how it works. I will admit I had never heard of the Free Enterprise Institute or know who Jay Snelson is or Galambos. Upon doing a little research, I am reminded of L. Ron Hubbard.
It has been my personal experience and appears numerous times in history, that ideas and inventions are not necessarily unique to an individual. When the time is right and relatively the same information has been disseminated widely, new inventions or thoughts usually occur in multiple people at widely dispersed locations at about the same time. This not always true, but does happen more frequently than one supposes. For example, I never patented anything during my creative computer years, simply because new ideas seemed to be obvious follow-ups to what had gone before and by patenting an idea, I would be obstructing to some degree, future advances. I had plenty of opportunities, many of which would have given me a much better competitive advantage, but I felt they were advances for everyone rather than something distinct with me.

Stop lying. You’ve been given enough of a response from several directions.

ANY revenue that can be collected will help reduce the deficit. Claiming that it’s not enough therefore it’s useless is like saying you will refuse a 5% raise because it doesn’t meet your desired salary goal. Only a very stupid person would refuse the 5%, because every bit counts and you have to start somewhere. If you really want to argue that it’s not enough, then you should advocate a tax increase BEYOND just letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. I’m betting that a majority of Americans would also support that approach, knowing full well that the upper 2% have benefited VASTLY disproportionately to the rest of Americans over the last several decades. The upper 2% have it better in terms of wealth distribution than at any time since the 1920′s.

Hey, I like your thinking. If we aren’t cutting enough spending to eliminate the deficit by 6:00 am tomorrow, hell, perhaps we should just give the wealthy another $800 billion in tax cuts. How did you ever get to be so smart?

It is good that you were/are an entrepreneur. That is admirable. Not everyone is going to be that but will be working for someone else just as I have for 47 years. Does that mean that those of us on SS are not entitled to the amounts we are getting? Please let me know.
As far as your questions regarding revenues etc., go back and read the article and others that discuss the topic in detail.

Something sent through email and a woma from your state.

SO TRUE. j

—–
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Fw: Fwd: Fw: Ticked Off

:

:

: Ticked Off

A good read. I hope it got to Alan Simpson.

Would you rather spend $100 or $99? Don’t duck the question.

You know full well that the economy needs to recover fully to be able to successfully address the mess that Republicans (read: people who have been arguing your argument) have gotten us into. But you are correct: The tax rates on the wealthiest 2% should probably be increased above and beyond just letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. How about a 50% or 60% rate? That would make you feel better, yes?

Just so you will feel better, once the tax rates are raised back to pre-Bush levels, with the increase in Medicare taxes and the increases in various states where I pay taxes, I will be paying over 50% in income taxes. Will I be getting any more benefits than you? Absolutely not. So you can feel good that I will be punished for being far more successful than you.

I told you what I do with the SS they send.
I doubt that anyone would be qualified to work for you since you obviously don’t have a clue how business works.
I ignored your ‘lowest annualized’ nonsense. The truth is in the real spending numbers, not some ‘spending growth’ from a ridiculous starting point. Again, pretty good proof you have never run a successful business.

I would suspect the Israeli’s are just a little pleased with the outgrowth of SDI. The resulting missile shield capability still worries the Russians.

The government already takes from all of us at the point of a gun. If you don’t believe it, don’t pay your taxes and see if unarmed men come to get you.

26% of Montana is owned by the Federal government. Maybe they are just funding their fair share?

A question can be considered a challenge, if you wish.

How much will the higher taxes bring in per year?
How much more than we receive in revenue, if any, will we be spending per year after receiving those taxes? (deficit spending)
How much of it, if any, will be applied to actually paying down the debt?

you can take SS off the table, that spending is to pay back the 2.7 trillion borrowed from SS to fund Viet Nam.

Yep: Your donuts, like your arguments, suck.

Have you stopped to look at the salaries of each CEO for the major insurance companies? That is what you are paying for and what needs to be changed. With the GOP in the pocket of the insurance industry, they continue to try and control the outcome of these policies. Without the government bureaucracy/regulations, the insurance industry will run amuck and the trend to higher salaries for them will continue while at the same time, decreased claims will be paid for patients.

Montana, I have read those transcripts. I have also read the ugliness in past elections, but I have never seen anything like we have today nor were any of past politics so violent.

Montana, you are absolutely right about the past being uglier than the present. I was talking about politics.

If it is insulting to be asked questions regarding defending your position, then I am truly insulting you.

Love it….” FIRED UP !, READY TO GO !”

Thanks Ralph. I don’t like the throwing of labels like the worst ever. W wasnt’ the worst ever and unlike Bozo the Idiot who clims President Obama is the worst in the last 100 years I thinks your list of Harding, Hoover and Nixon lay that claim to waste.

I am unsure of what your point is, idamag, but BDC wrote “worst President we ever had” not “he”. Yes, Hoover was an engineer but he was also a successful businessman and made a sizable fortune in mining just as the Bush clan made a fortune in oil. Nixon was good at foreign relations and made it possible for Walmart to stop supporting all American producers (the way Sam Walton did) and make more profit by switching to products from China. If I were to only judge presidents within my lifetime I would have to ignore all presidents before Hoover while I have a couple great-grandaughters who would only be able to count Obama.