Pat Oliphant for March 26, 2009

beautifully done. Our president is tackling the important issues and there are no quick fixes. I admire his courage and intellect and I hope for the good of us all that he succeeds.

The weight is truly on the shoulders of every tax payer….watch your wallets

etocme: So, you can run the best country on Earth on the cheap?

etocme, you sound like the Republicans Oliphant is lampooning. Do you have any solutions, or like the rest of the GOP, do you “Got 0 Plans”?

We tried cutting taxes for 8 years etocme.

It didn’t work.

As a nation we haven’t had to truly sacrifice for the common good since the days of the Depression. When we needed to be asked, we weren’t… instead we got the GOP panacaea of lowering taxes on everyone except those best equipped to pay it, supply-side jiggery-pokery, and (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) trickle-down non-economics.

Perfect.

It appears to me, that Obama, is carrying a problem he helped create, since he was in the Senate, and helped pass legislation, that is causing our problems. And unless he is superman, he couldn’t read all of the 11,000+ pages of legislation he signed. I wonder what other hooks are in it, that will cause even bigger problems. You don’t sign a contract unless you have read it all the way through. He didn’t do that. So much for intellect.

Oliphsnt is neglecting to point out that Princess Pelosi and Rip-off Reid are preventing the Republicans from having ANY INPUT into legislation through improper and unconstitutional “legislative rules”. I THOUGHT we had a two (or more) party system, but that is not currently reality

WillBerry – It’s always OK when the Rep’s do it… but otherwise it’s treason? http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/budget-reconciliation/

It’s obvious to anyone with a grasp on reality that the Greedy Obstructionist Party wants to sabotage any recovery so they can then blame Obama for not fixing the problems we face.

Also, Willberry, Obama was not in the senate to vote approval of deregulation of credit default swaps, or (the right wing’s favorite scapegoat) the equality in mortgage lending laws.

wogmin says: “It appears to me, that Obama, is carrying a problem he helped create”

Where was Obama when Reagan was president? DON”T blame Obama for the mess that has been snowballing for decades…

Obama should be pictured riding piggy back on a China man who is carrying the world.

Obama has important work to offset the financial mess he inherited from the Bush administration. Let’s see if the Repubs can think of the good of the citizens rather than the 15% (base) that they pander to.

deadheadzan: And if no one believes you, point them to the quote by Bush:

“Some call you the elite. I call you my base.”

Brainless partisan cartoon with absolutely no insight.

Excuse me, how about that Chinese gentleman carrying the mountain of IOU’s Dubya gave ‘im?

And outside the frame, their corporate buds are riding on top of the load they built.

charliekane…China told Obama, not Bush, to watch what he was doing because it would be a disaster and it has nothing to do with Bush but everything with the way Obama is going about it. Again a communist nation is telling the Obama administration how to be capitalist and thrive, not the Bush administration.

China may be the workshop of the world, but when something goes wrong internationally, the World looks up to POTUS because history has shown that (despite the mistakes, even those of the last eight years) america is not as nearly a bad master as other nations have been in their time.

The World looks up to america, really.

trickle down economics=voodoo economics H. W. Bush While he was running against Reagan for the nomination, Bush the elder called Reagan’s economic policies voodoo economics. Exactly what they were, they performed magic for the upper class economy and turned the rest of the country’s finances into zombies only able to exist, never able to really live, but not totally dead either.Until now when the magic has disappeared and virtually everybodies finances have or are dying(oh except for the ones at the top who CAN STILL AFFORD THE WITCH DOCTOR.)

Never once did China or Russia have to warn Regan or Bush to stop going down an economic road because it would ruin OUR economy and deflate the value of OUR currency like they have done with Obama.

boohooo I have to pay taxes :-(

lalas, thanks for the link. Very informative.

Dale Hopsen asks about the Reagan years, and how he, supposedly was responsible for the mess we are in today. HELLO!! It was Jimmy Carter, and the Democrats, with their fillibuster proof congress, and senate, that started us on this path by enacting, environmental, and animal rights legislation which is destroying this nation today. If it wasn’t for Reagan, there would be no middle class. The Dems, have rewritten history, because they don’t want people knowing the truth.

envoyram says:

trickle down economics=voodoo economics H. W. Bush While he was running against Reagan for the nomination, Bush the elder called Reagan’s economic policies voodoo economics.

News flash, Bush was wrong. Under Reagans, voodoo economics, is responsible for the largest gains in median income of the middle class, in history. Without these ‘voodoo economics’, there wouldn’t be a middle class.

I guess Clinton was rewritin’ history by handin’ Dubya a budget surplus.

Steven Pearlstein’s assessment is instructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303321.html

charliekane says:

I guess Clinton was rewritin’ history by handin’ Dubya a budget surplus.

It’s a good thing that you are guessing. Otherwise your facts would have been suspect.

^You read my article, I’ll read yours.

A major problem was passage of the Gramm-Leach-Blilley law in 1999 which took away safeguards that had been in place since the New Deal. Senator Drogan spoke at the time that this could cause serious damage in the next 10 years. He was correct.

@charliekane:

Go to the following site. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Put start date as 1 Oct 1993 (Clinton’s first budget) and end date as 30 Sep 2001 (Clinton’s last budget) and check it out. There always has been a deficit (Incidentally, budget cycles run from Oct to Sep, so Obama’s first budget will be from Oct 09 to Sep 10).

For heaven’s sake don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the growth in federal debt under Bush years. I am trying to disprove the claim about Clinton Budget surplus.

If you choose to dig deep down in the treasury site (referenced in my previous post), you would find that in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of only $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush’s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton’s last budget, that still means that Clinton’s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn’t leave President Bush with a surplus.

atty: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/duringtheclintonadministrationwasthefederal.html

(When I try the link, I still have to ask for “Clinton Budget Surplus” in the search box.)

LLeRay : I am not a sock puppet, but whenever one party is in charge of BOTH the Congress and the White House, the US is in for terrible times - Look back over history and you’ll see what I mean. I am an Independent, and have been registered that way ever since NC, where I live, has allowed it (we actually get to vote in either party’s primary, but only one per election) - I am critical of Princess Pelosi and Rip-Off Harry for their PARTISAN actions, shutting down debate, trying to shut out anyone but the party insiders from having any input to legislation. If you read the two stimulus laws, the one under President Bush was rather straight forward, not to mention short (although still ridiculous); while the one forced down America’s throat by Pelosi-Reid runs 1,000+ pages across FIVE PDF files, and has so many references to other arcane (try the 1936 Rural Electrification Program law for instance), or hidden (placing the Bill identification numbers even when it was not passed into LAW with that language), that it took me the better part of a week, working ~10-12 hours per day on my computer to decipher MOST of it (some of the cited legislation is NOT available on on-line Government record)! Any pretense to clarity, transparency or open government went out the window on November 4, 2008.

wogmin says:

Dale Hopsen asks about the Reagan years, and how he, supposedly was responsible for the mess we are in today. HELLO!! It was Jimmy Carter, and the Democrats, with their fillibuster proof congress, and senate, that started us on this path by enacting, environmental, and animal rights legislation which is destroying this nation today. If it wasn’t for Reagan, there would be no middle class. The Dems, have rewritten history, because they don’t want people knowing the truth.

AMEN-AMEN-AMEN And, with the November 4, 2008 election we have another inexperienced Democratic politician in the White House and a near (or, thanks to Princess Pelosi and Rip-off Harry Reid’s rules, effective) filibuster-proof Congress - Stagflation was a new term in the Carter years, which we may soon have to dust-off for use once again!

@charliekane: I will double check the numbers.

However, by looking into historical numbers provided as part of the FY09 budget (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf), it seems that FY 1998 had a surplus of 69 Bn, FY 99 had a surplus of 128 Bn, FY 2000 had a surplus of 236 Bn and FY 01 had a surplus of 128 Bn (Pg # 23, actually 26).

However, if you move to Pg 128 (actual 131), you would see the Federal Debt for each of those years. The debt grew every single year. The debt grew from $5.3 Trillion in 1997 to $5.7 Trillion in 2001.

In theory it is possible to have a debt while maintaining surplus, but somehow the numbers that I see don’t add up. If there is a real surplus, how come we are increasing the debt each year? Doesn’t common sense say that debt will reduce (or atleast not increase) if there is a surplus?

WilliB,should I use your logic ? An’t so cause I said so!

Do you mean the CD gaffe of giving the wrong type of CDs that can’t be played in the UK

or..

The fact he gave CDs as a gift to a head of state instead of a thought out gift gaffe

or…

The “I’m too plum tired to even give a correct reception to a head of state” gaffe

or…

The returning of the gift the UK gave to us after 911 gaffe

or….

The Special Olympics gaffe

or…

Appointing tax cheats to his administration and having them drop out from embarrassment gaffe

or…

HUMPHRIES says: “WilliB,should I use your logic ? An’t so cause I said so!”

Humphries, I would be glad to hear ANY constructive comment from you, using ANY logic, rather than useless insults!

^Benchjockeys.

attyush : The problem is that you’re dealing with Politician’s Math. They can say whatever they want, but when you’re through voting the numbers will change to be something else entirely, like their promises (“Transparency” or “Bipartisan” sound familiar?)

wogmin says: “Dale Hopsen asks about the Reagan years, and how he, supposedly was responsible for the mess we are in today.”

Reagan tried to do what Thatcher had done with the banking system… which didn’t work and which is why the richest woman in the world ( Queen Elizabeth ) now pays taxes. Credit on credit does NOT work!

WillieB, my view point - your view point. We seem to be equally effective.

@concerned_human:

Not me. Not before I have a say in the budget too. I believe that the members of congress (republicans and democrats) are self-centered and self-serving. So unless I really see fiscal responsibility, I am not in favor of paying higher taxes.

By the way, for me this issue has nothing to do with patriotism. I hate being manipulated. I don’t get swayed by great speeches, photo sessions, media fawning over baby-kissing moments, and beautifully worded op-eds.

So if I see pointless waste of money, I am out. I did not like a lot of Bush’s policies, and judging by the first 60 days, doesn’t seem like I will be a Obama fan either. His budget shows a $2.2 Trillion savings out of which $1.6 Trillion is coming by way of “not maintaining troops in Iraq till 2019”. What? Even trigger happy Bush would have us out of Iraq by 2019. Does he and his staff really think that we are morons?

In a nutshell concerned_human, your question is wrong. I mean your question doesn’t make sense. Why would I pay more into the system that doesn’t know what to do with the money that is coming in now? I don’t increase my children’s pocket money because they wasted it. I try and teach them about fiscal responsibility.

It’s like this, Stew.

Whether you’re using the flag as a doormat or a pedestal, ( as do the neo-con ‘patriots’ ) you’re still smearing footprints all over it.

And I had no idea that most of the country is made up of folks who aren’t ‘Real Americans’.

( Unless you count sockpuppets…in which case the neo-cons DO have the majority. LOL! )

And who are you trying to kid with that “I pay more taxes than 95% of you pay?” BS?

I looked it up; to be in the top 5% tax bracket, you have to be making more than $3 Mil a year.

And since you were long ago outed as being a twentysomething, ( if that old ) I don’t think that bird is gonna fly.

If it’s not my business how much moolah you make Stew…why did you post that you were in the top 5% Tax Bracket in the first place.

And that’s the top FIVE percent Stew. That’s where you said you were…not the top 21% or top 14%.

And it’s not what that article you copied and pasted said.

( Personally, I think the reason a lot of the rightie folks here hate Obama’s tax plan so much is coz now Daddy won’t be buying ‘em a Porsche for their birthday. )

@Simon:

I take offense to your assertion. Personally I think you have never looked at a federal budget and matched up the numbers. Most likely you get your facts from political commentators who confirm your prejudices.

Actually, this is spot on. Notice Chairman Obama’s back is to the Republicans. He’s not facing them, reaching out for help as he claimed. Of course the liberals complain because notbody’s rushing to help the guy who turned his back to them.

Someone said that we tried tax cuts and they didn’t work. Unfortunately, the record revenues that flowed into the treasury would disagree.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/charts.pdf

Simon:

Ol’ Stewzie’s gots us dead to rights. Ya see, he’s one o’ them Real Amur’cans, jus’ like da kin’ dat Saint Sarah Palin loves.

We tries ta be, but we jus’ ain’t Real Amur’cans. Jus’ cain’t git nuthin right lessin’ youz a real Amur’can.

LLeRay -Thanks again - I’m just looking for clear, informed discussion/debate, without insults!

@WillBerry: Good luck finding that.

Wilberry…you slay me

First you show up, spouting terms like ‘Democheats’, etc.

And then you get all righteous n’ indignant about there being a lack of informed discussion/debate on this site.

In case yer wondering what that loud, crashing sound is, it’s the glass walls of your house, cascading down around your ears.

As for you, attyush…how do you know where I got my figures if YOU never matched up the numbers yourself? ( As you just admitted. )

@Simon:

Logic must not be your strong suite. I said that I will “double check”. And then, I went ahead and pointed out the historical tables that show the growth of debt every single year. So whaddya mean by “you never matched it up?”

You make a sweeping statement about “righties” hating the tax increase. I gave you a perfectly sane reason. The fact that current tax dollars are mis-managed makes my position on taxes well justified. So far, I haven’t seen anything from you that actually has a semblance of reasoning. If at all you quote something, I bet it will be a “nicely worded op-ed”. Hence my assertion.

You know what, prove me wrong. Show me some original argument. And puhlease, no rhetorics. We get plenty of that from Mr. Obama anyway.

Here are your exact words

I take offense to your assertion. Personally I think you have never looked at a federal budget and matched up the numbers. Most likely you get your facts from political commentators who confirm your prejudices.

Okay, my bad…you were saying that I never matched up the numbers. And you were taking umbrage at my remark about a new porsche, not my comments about the budget numbers. Now I understand.

BUT…what I actually said was, “Personally, I think that A LOT of the righties in HERE hate Obama’s tax plan was…etc.”

That’s not what I call sweeping statement, it’s what I call a throwaway comment. And folks like that do exist. Remember Leona Helmsley and her comment, “Only the little people pay taxes”?

As for reasoned responses…I tried to do that when I first came on here. What I got for my efforts was watching the Dems who post here being called everything from traitors to potheads by the resident neo-cons…and it still goes on. Check out some of the comments on the Stu Carlson ‘pot on the border’ cartoon.

Bottom line, I don’t debate with trolls…and I don’t ignore them either. In my experience, ignoring a troll is like waiting for termites to, ‘just go away.’

And no, I do not consider you a troll…or oldlegodad or razorbackred or any of the other real conservatives here.

Now, having said that…I don’t have to look at a budget table to know that during the Clinton years the Federal Deficit became a surplus. And before you try to give the Republican congress credit for that, I would remind you that this SAME Congress was still in place when Bush took over, and only went further into the Republican camp as the years progressed…and where did the deficit go then? And why? Did the Congress suddenly change its spending habits…or did the tax structure change? You tell me.

I also learned something else quite recently, that even I found surprising. Trying to balance the Federal budget is a good way to bring ON a recession…as both FDR and Ike found out, the former the hard way, the latter less so.

( Source, The Glory and The Dream, by William Manchester )

So…am I completely happy with Obama’s budget plans? No…and I never expected to be. But it’s a helluva lot better than the Republican alternative…for the very simple reason they don’t have one.

@Simon:

I am a newbie on these forums. So don’t know everyone’s affiliations and their reasoning skills :). I am quite capable of laughing at my beliefs, having a good discussion and admitting that I am wrong. After reading your response, I am inclined to believe that you are also capable of the same things.

I fully agree about trolls (both in these forums and real lives). There are people who just make comments without regards to facts, feelings and so on. As a matter of fact, they kill a decent discussion. I do not believe you are a troll. And if somehow I have offended you, then my apologies.

Thomas Reed once said that “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.” Replace the “open their mouths” with “type on their keyboards” and his observation can be extended to these forums.

I really enjoy having a good discussion and hope that all sane people continue to indulge me. Now ignoring some of the vicious comments are impossible, but I guess freedom of speech comes with its own price.

I guess Simon Jester is sporadic, with posts and logic. As I don’t live in a glass house, and as the budget during Clinton’s time was balanced by Newt Gingrich and “The Contract With America”, which was ousted by ethics attacks by the Democrats, his logic appears to be in shards.

Stewie, if I understand you, you don’t think anyone should ever tell you what to do with your money because it’s yours and nobody else’s. That works fine is a world without communities, where every person is in it for themselves only. But in a world where we band together in societies, there has to be a form of organized leadership which necessarily works for the general welfare of the whole. Which means, we pool our resources (taxes) and trust the chosen leadership to allocate those resources as best they can. We don’t get to choose how much we pay or where those resources go – we choose the leaders. That’s been the American way for a long time now. I doubt you can find a system that lets you do what you want.

This discussion is getting as tired as this cartoon. concerned_human has a problem, since his ideas don’t add up - I’m not sure why he thinks the homeless pay taxes, unless he’s talking about some new type of homeless person who is making, say, $50,000 or so while living on the street.

The GOP released their budget plan… funny, there wasn’t a single number included!

BTW- Income tax was meant to be a short-term solution to pay for WWI.

Rik:

That the law Wesley Snipes was readin’?

“Paying federal taxes…is not…even necessary”

………………WHAT?!

“As long as 99.9% of the population is trembling in fear, they’re not going to bother with the .10th% who’ve read the instructions.”

What “instructions”? I’ve looked for the citation you gave and it’s not complete. US Code 26, Subtitle A has 6 chapters. Which chapter are “paragraphs 1441, 1442, and 1443” in?

Unless you mean “sections 1441, 1442, and 1443” under Subchapter A of Chapter 3, but it can’t be that, because it only refers to foreign businesses, organizations, and nonresident aliens, so does not apply to the rest of the Title. What are you referring to, exactly?

“if I unharnessed myself from income taxes, I would go to jail unlike Jackazz’s cabinet appointees.”

Jail is only used when the failure to pay taxes is intentional. There is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing on the part of any of Obama’s cabinet appointees. Remember, we still have “innocent until proven guilty” in this country.

Can you PROVE that they intentionally didn’t pay?

“If you don’t sign any tax forms, then he doesn’t become your “employer”, he doesn’t have to match the weekly fees he’s drawing from your check, and you are simply a private contractor.”

Yeah, not quite.

Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21, Subchapter C, Section 3121(d).

An “employee” is any individual who performs services for remuneration for any person on a continuing basis. Don’t try to BS me. Title 26 is clear. If you are an employee or contractor, you’re required to have federal taxes taken out of your remuneration.

That is, unless you can link me to the exact portion (give me the full path) of Title 26 where it says what you want it to say….

Here is a full path as an example:

Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21, Subchapter C, Section 3121(b)(A)(ii).

I will accept nothing less than full chapter and verse, as it will. Do you have what I require?

I already told you, rik, that I will ONLY accept the full path to the portion of Title 26 that says what you say. I will listen to nothing else.

“You simply don’t do it!”

That’s called breaking the law. You see, in the real world, there are laws. Laws apply to people. Laws like Title 26.

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1 (for the layfolks, that’s the very first part of Title 26):

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual, every surviving spouse, every head of a household, every individual, every estate and every trust a tax determined in accordance with the [provided tables]”.

What is “taxable income”? Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, Section 63(a): “the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.”

What is “gross income”? Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, Section 62(a): “gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)… Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; Gross income derived from business; Gains derived from dealings in property; Interest; Rents; Royalties; Dividends; Alimony and separate maintenance payments; Annuities; Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; Pensions; Income from discharge of indebtedness; Distributive share of partnership gross income; Income in respect of a decedent; and Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”

Do go away until you learn what you’re talking about.

“If you do not appear in the categories that make Subtitle A applicable, then why are you reading any further?”

Except, Subtitle A is applicable to anyone deriving an income.

“Gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

I don’t have any further use to talk to you because you are trying to find a weasel way out of an airtight law (yes, it’s airtight and it’s the law) that is meant to help the country and I find it patently disgusting. I’m through.

Oh. My. Dear. Sweet. Lord. Are you the dense one!

Here is the definition of income:

“Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items”.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is made up of 12 member banks. The Board of Governors controls these banks and virtually all profits from these banks go back into the US Treasury. No foreign or nonbank entity may legally own shares in any federal reserve bank.

The idea that taxes are voluntary or that the Federal Reserve is owned by foreign interests are conspiracy theories that are equivalent to “9/11 was an inside job” and “moon landing was a hoax” tinfoil hat wearers.

Go away.

*facepalm*