Trillon dollar tax hike will cost 700,000 jobs in two years? Please explain!

[theclemsonkid]

Just read an article on FOXnews.com blasting Obama/Biden for wanting to allow the Bush Era tax cuts expire. If they did expire, individuals making more than $250,000 per year would see a 5% take hike, raising over a trillion dollars in new revenue. Paul Ryan, at a speech had this to say about the tax hike:
"What we don’t need is a trillion-dollar tax increase," Ryan said. "What we don’t need is a tax increase on our successful job creators that will cost us 700,000 jobs in just two years."
Now, I'm clearly no economist. I'm just looking at the numbers. If an individual is making a minimum, and I stress minimum of $250,000 a year, a 5% increase would take another $12,500 per year. That's no doubt a good chunk of change.
However, with the majority of these "job creators" making millions, if not tens of millions of dollars a year, does the 5% really mean you're company will have to lay off workers? I just don't buy it. These people have lifestyles that are much, much more lavish and luxurious than 5% could ever destroy, let alone force them to lay off workers.
Unless it means that the "job creators" care more about their country club memberships and Maserati's than they do keeping people employed. Everyone says that during bad times everyone needs to "tighten the belt" to help the cause. Does it suck that the government wants to take 5% more? ABSOLUTELY. However, this country gave you the chance, and its population bought your product or service to make you a millionaire... don't you think you can give back a little?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393158/trillon-dollar-tax-hike-will-cost-700-000-jobs-in-two-years-please-explain#post_3495335
Just read an article on FOXnews.com blasting Obama/Biden for wanting to allow the Bush Era tax cuts expire. If they did expire, individuals making more than $250,000 per year would see a 5% take hike, raising over a trillion dollars in new revenue. Paul Ryan, at a speech had this to say about the tax hike:
"What we don’t need is a trillion-dollar tax increase," Ryan said. "What we don’t need is a tax increase on our successful job creators that will cost us 700,000 jobs in just two years."
Now, I'm clearly no economist. I'm just looking at the numbers. If an individual is making a minimum, and I stress minimum of $250,000 a year, a 5% increase would take another $12,500 per year. That's no doubt a good chunk of change.
However, with the majority of these "job creators" making millions, if not tens of millions of dollars a year, does the 5% really mean you're company will have to lay off workers? I just don't buy it. These people have lifestyles that are much, much more lavish and luxurious than 5% could ever destroy, let alone force them to lay off workers.
Unless it means that the "job creators" care more about their country club memberships and Maserati's than they do keeping people employed. Everyone says that during bad times everyone needs to "tighten the belt" to help the cause. Does it suck that the government wants to take 5% more? ABSOLUTELY. However, this country gave you the chance, and its population bought your product or service to make you a millionaire... don't you think you can give back a little?
That 5% increase would be on their personal income. How many of these business owners dump the majority of their personal income into their business? Most businesses are incorporated, and financed through business loans, and hopefully by profits made. If the business falters, they shut down, go into bankruptcy/insolvency and the BUSINESS gets dinged as far as a credit rating. It doesn't affect the owners credit one bit. That's why you keep the two seperate. Now it could affect the people working for the business, since the business owner gets his "paycheck" from profits made in said business. His check, for whatever amount he deems he deserves from the profits, takes precedence over any employees check. If the business loses profits, the employee gets whacked if the owner isn't willing to take a pay cut himself. However, revenues from businesses have nothing to do with Bush Tax Cuts, unless their getting rid of some Corporate Tax Credit at the same time.

 

[darthtang aw]

That 5% increase would be on their personal income.  How many of these business owners dump the majority of their personal income into their business?  Most businesses are incorporated, and financed through business loans, and hopefully by profits made.  If the business falters, they shut down, go into bankruptcy/insolvency and the BUSINESS gets dinged as far as a credit rating.  It doesn't affect the owners credit one bit.  That's why you keep the two seperate.  Now it could affect the people working for the business, since the business owner gets his "paycheck" from profits made in said business.  His check, for whatever amount he deems he deserves from the profits, takes precedence over any employees check.  If the business loses profits, the employee gets whacked if the owner isn't willing to take a pay cut himself.  However, revenues from businesses have nothing to do with Bush Tax Cuts, unless their getting rid of some Corporate Tax Credit at the same time.
No, most SMALL businesses are not incorporated. 54% of small businesses are taxed at the individual rate. Not the Corporate rate.
Most small businesses, the Profits from the business are added to the individuals income. Thus dictating their tax bracket and taxes paid out.

 

[slice]

Below is the Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary.
It shows that a trillion dollar tax increase would roughly increase the government by about 27% and increase the confiscation of GDP up to roughly 30.6%.
Taking that much money out of the private economy will obviously have a damping effect on, well...everything.
It makes the "pie" smaller. It collapsed any fuel for growth. It puts government even more in control of, well...everything.




13-Apr-12































































































SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS(-)







IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 2005) DOLLARS, AND AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1940-2017







[in Billions of Dollars]



























































In Current Dollars



In Constant (FY2005 Dollars)



Addendum:



As Percentages of GDP





Fiscal Year



Receipts



Outlays



Surplus or Deficit (-)



Receipts



Outlays



Surplus or Deficit (-)

Composite Deflator


Receipts



Outlays



Surplus or Deficit (-)





















































1940



6.5



9.5



-2.9



81.4



117.8



-36.3



0.0804



6.8



9.8



-3.0







1941



8.7



13.7



-4.9



104.2



163.3



-59.1



0.0836



7.6



12.0



-4.3







1942



14.6



35.1



-20.5



156.3



375.4



-219.1



0.0936



10.1



24.3



-14.2







1943



24.0



78.6



-54.6



233.9



765.6



-531.7



0.1026



13.3



43.6



-30.3





1944



43.7



91.3



-47.6



461.0



962.1



-501.1

0.0949


20.9



43.6



-22.7





















































1945



45.2



92.7



-47.6



499.0



1,024.4



-525.4



0.0905



20.4



41.9



-21.5







1946



39.3



55.2



-15.9



433.7



609.6



-175.9



0.0906



17.7



24.8



-7.2







1947



38.5



34.5



4.0



385.1



345.0



40.2



0.1000



16.5



14.8



1.7







1948



41.6



29.8



11.8



392.8



281.3



111.5



0.1058



16.2



11.6



4.6





1949



39.4



38.8



0.6



384.9



379.2



5.7



0.1024



14.5



14.3



0.2





















































1950



39.4



42.6



-3.1



370.7



400.0



-29.3



0.1064



14.4



15.6



-1.1







1951



51.6



45.5



6.1



493.0



434.7



58.3



0.1047



16.1



14.2



1.9







1952



66.2



67.7



-1.5



635.6



650.2



-14.6



0.1041



19.0



19.4



-0.4







1953



69.6



76.1



-6.5



619.3



677.1



-57.8



0.1124



18.7



20.4



-1.7





1954



69.7

">
70.9


-1.2



599.3



609.2



-9.9



0.1163



18.5



18.8



-0.3





















































1955



65.5



68.4



-3.0



544.1



568.9



-24.9



0.1203



16.5



17.3



-0.8







1956



74.6



70.6



3.9



590.6



559.3



31.2



0.1263



17.5



16.5



0.9







1957



80.0



76.6



3.4



602.8



577.1



25.7



0.1327



17.7



17.0



0.8







1958



79.6



82.4



-2.8



566.8



586.5



-19.7



0.1405



17.3



17.9



-0.6



d height="16" style="height:16px;">
1959


79.2



92.1



-12.8



542.8



630.8



-88.0



0.1460



16.2



18.8



-2.6





















































1960



92.5



92.2



0.3



630.9



628.9



2.1



0.1466



17.8



17.8



0.1







1961



94.4



97.7



-3.3



626.3



648.5



-22.1



0.1507



17.8



18.4



-0.6







1962



99.7



106.8



-7.1



659.7



707.0



-47.3



0.1511



17.6



18.8



-1.3





1963



106.6



111.3



-4.8



674.9



705.0



-30.1



0.1579



17.8

tyle="width:75px;">
18.6


-0.8





1964



112.6



118.5



-5.9



704.3



741.3



-37.0



0.1599



17.6



18.5



-0.9























































1965



116.8



118.2



-1.4



721.1



729.8



-8.7



0.1620



17.0



17.2



-0.2







1966



130.8



134.5



-3.7



789.1



811.4



-22.3



0.1658



17.3



17.8



-0.5







1967



148.8



157.5



-8.6



875.4



926.3



-50.8



0.1700



18.4



19.4



-1.1





1968



153.0



178.1



-25.2



866.7



1,009.3

th:75px;">
-142.6


0.1765



17.6



20.5



-2.9





1969



186.9



183.6



3.2



993.5



976.3



17.2



0.1881



19.7



19.4



0.3























































1970



192.8



195.6



-2.8



968.4



982.7



-14.3



0.1991



19.0



19.3



-0.3







1971



187.1



210.2



-23.0



877.4



985.3



-108.0



0.2133



17.3



19.5



-2.1







1972



207.3



230.7



-23.4



908.1



1,010.4



-102.4



0.2283



17.6



19.6



-2.0





1973



230.8



245.7

x;">
-14.9


956.9



1,018.7



-61.8



0.2412



17.6



18.7



-1.1





1974



263.2



269.4



-6.1



1,004.3



1,027.7



-23.4



0.2621



18.3



18.7



-0.4























































1975



279.1



332.3



-53.2



966.0



1,150.3



-184.3



0.2889



17.9



21.3



-3.4







1976



298.1



371.8



-73.7



956.2



1,192.8



-236.5



0.3117



17.1



21.4



-4.2







TQ



81.2



96.0



-14.7



253.1



299.1



-45.9



0.3209



17.7



20.9



-3.2



6px;">
1977


355.6



409.2



-53.7



1,054.8



1,213.9



-159.2



0.3371



18.0



20.7



-2.7





1978



399.6



458.7



-59.2



1,113.6



1,278.6



-165.0



0.3588



18.0



20.7



-2.7







1979



463.3



504.0



-40.7



1,187.3



1,291.7



-104.4



0.3902



18.5



20.1



-1.6























































1980



517.1



590.9



-73.8



1,197.6



1,368.6



-171.0



0.4318



19.0



21.7



-2.7







1981



599.3



678.2



-79.0



1,251.4



1,416.2



-164.9



0.4789



19.6



22.2



-2.6



">
1982


617.8



745.7



-128.0



1,202.8



1,452.0



-249.2



0.5136



19.2



23.1



-4.0





1983



600.6



808.4



-207.8



1,113.6



1,498.9



-385.3



0.5393



17.5



23.5



-6.0







1984



666.4



851.8



-185.4



1,174.3



1,501.0



-326.6



0.5675



17.3



22.2



-4.8























































1985



734.0



946.3



-212.3



1,250.9



1,612.7



-361.8



0.5868



17.7



22.8



-5.1





1986



769.2



990.4



-221.2



1,277.7



1,645.2



-367.5



0.6020



17.5
>

22.5



-5.0





1987



854.3



1,004.0



-149.7



1,375.7



1,616.8



-241.1



0.6210



18.4



21.6



-3.2







1988



909.2



1,064.4



-155.2



1,421.1



1,663.7



-242.5



0.6398



18.2



21.3



-3.1







1989



991.1



1,143.7



-152.6



1,494.0



1,724.1



-230.1



0.6634



18.4



21.2



-2.8























































1990



1,032.0



1,253.0



-221.0



1,508.7



1,831.9



-323.2



0.6840



18.0



21.9



-3.9





1991



1,055.0



1,324.2



-269.2



1,473.0

75px;">
1,849.0


-375.9



0.7162



17.8



22.3



-4.5





1992



1,091.2



1,381.5



-290.3



1,467.5



1,857.9



-390.4



0.7436



17.5



22.1



-4.7







1993



1,154.3



1,409.4



-255.1



1,511.5



1,845.5



-334.0



0.7637



17.5



21.4



-3.9







1994



1,258.6



1,461.8



-203.2



1,617.7



1,878.9



-261.2



0.7780



18.0



21.0



-2.9























































1995



1,351.8



1,515.8



-164.0



1,691.4



1,896.6



-205.1



0.7992



18.4



20.6



-2.2





1996



1,453.1



1,560.5



-107.4



1,775.5



1,906.8



-131.3



0.8184



18.8



20.2



-1.4





1997



1,579.2



1,601.1



-21.9



1,889.9



1,916.1



-26.2



0.8356



19.2



19.5



-0.3







1998



1,721.7



1,652.5



69.3



2,040.9



1,958.8



82.1



0.8436



19.9



19.1



0.8







1999



1,827.5



1,701.8



125.6



2,136.4



1,989.5



146.8



0.8554



19.8



18.5



1.4























































2000



2,025.2



1,789.0



236.2



2,310.0



2,040.6



269.5



0.8767



20.6



18.2



2.4





2001

1,991.1


1,862.9



128.2



2,215.3



2,072.7



142.7



0.8988



19.5



18.2



1.3





2002



1,853.1



2,010.9



-157.8



2,028.6



2,201.3



-172.7



0.9135



17.6



19.1



-1.5







2003



1,782.3



2,159.9



-377.6



1,901.1



2,303.9



-402.8



0.9375



16.2



19.7



-3.4







2004



1,880.1



2,292.9



-412.7



1,949.5



2,377.5



-428.0



0.9644



16.1



19.6



-3.5





















































2005



2,153.6



2,472.0



-318.3



2,153.6



2,472.0



-318.3



1.0000



17.3

19.9td>


-2.6





2006



2,406.9



2,655.1



-248.2



2,324.1



2,563.8



-239.6



1.0356



18.2



20.1



-1.9







2007



2,568.0



2,728.7



-160.7



2,414.0



2,565.1



-151.1



1.0638



18.5



19.6



-1.2







2008



2,524.0



2,982.5



-458.6



2,288.1



2,703.8



-415.7



1.1031



17.6



20.8



-3.2







2009



2,105.0



3,517.7



-1,412.7



1,899.0



3,173.4



-1,274.4



1.1085



15.1



25.2



-10.1







2010



2,162.7



3,456.2



-1,293.5



1,927.9



3,081.0



-1,153.0



1.1218



15.1



24.1



-9.0





2011



2,303.5



3,603.1



-1,299.6



1,998.7



3,126.3



-1,127.6



1.1525



15.4



24.1



-8.7





















































Estimates















































2012



2,468.6



3,795.5



-1,326.9



2,089.4



3,212.5



-1,123.1



1.1815



15.8



24.3



-8.5







2013



2,902.0



3,803.4



-901.4



2,409.1



3,157.4



-748.3



1.2046



17.8



23.3



-5.5







2014



3,215.3



3,883.1



-667.8



2,620.7



3,165.0



-544.3



1.2269



18.7



22.6



-3.9





2015



3,450.2



4,059.9



-609.7



2,759.0



3,246.6



-487.6



1.2505



19.0



22.3



-3.4





2016



3,680.1



4,328.8



-648.8



2,886.8



3,395.7



-508.9



1.2748



19.1



22.5



-3.4







2017



3,919.3



4,531.7



-612.4



3,013.2



3,484.1



-470.9



1.3007



19.2



22.2



-3.0























































Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (last accessed April 13, 2012).

 

[bionicarm]

You will never reduce the deficit to acceptable levels as long as the Bush Tax Cuts remain in place. There's not enough disretionary programs, entitlement programs, or even necessary programs you can cut to the bone to circumvent the revenues we're losing at this time. You can try and justify is promotes economic growth, but if that's the case, where's the growth since those cuts went into effect in 2002? How did growth occur during the Clinton Administration when no tax cuts of this kind were in place?
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011041516/conservative-tax-tricks-did-tax-cuts-grow-economy

 

[reefraff]

The claim is based on a study by Ernst and Young.
Here's the deal. 0bama has already added a 3.8% tax to investment income and "Flow through" business income for "the rich". He also increases the 2.9% medicare tax to 3.8% for "the rich" Repealing the Bush cuts for the "rich" moves their rates up from 33 to 36% and 36 to 39.6%. It also changes the dividend tax so instead of being taxed at 15% it will be taxed as regular income up to a 39.8% rate. Short term capital gains will increase from 15% to 20%. It also brings back a cap on itemized deductions.
You add it all up that a heck of a huge increase in taxes.

 

[darthtang aw]

Just read an article on FOXnews.com blasting Obama/Biden for wanting to allow the Bush Era tax cuts expire.  If they did expire, individuals making more than $250,000 per year would see a 5% take hike, raising over a trillion dollars in new revenue.  Paul Ryan, at a speech had this to say about the tax hike:
"What we don’t need is a trillion-dollar tax increase," Ryan said. "What we don’t need is a tax increase on our successful job creators that will cost us 700,000 jobs in just two years."
Now, I'm clearly no economist.  I'm just looking at the numbers.  If an individual is making a minimum, and I stress minimum of $250,000 a year, a 5% increase would take another $12,500 per year.  That's no doubt a good chunk of change. 
 
However, with the majority of these "job creators" making millions, if not tens of millions of dollars a year, does the 5% really mean you're company will have to lay off workers?  I just don't buy it.  These people have lifestyles that are much, much more lavish and luxurious than 5% could ever destroy, let alone force them to lay off workers.  
 
Unless it means that the "job creators" care more about their country club memberships and Maserati's than they do keeping people employed.  Everyone says that during bad times everyone needs to "tighten the belt" to help the cause.  Does it suck that the government wants to take 5% more? ABSOLUTELY.  However, this country gave you the chance, and its population bought your product or service to make you a millionaire... don't you think you can give back a little?
I would be inclined to a tax increase IF I actually saw the government tighten their belt...and I am not talking a lame number of 110 billion over 10 years. But When people talk tax increases while maintaining government spending...I have an issue with that...especially during an economic downturn. Taking my hard earned money to sustain some lame program like PBS or any one of the following 30 items that should have been cut years ago................
#1 The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
#2 The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees.
#3 If you can believe it, the U.S. government has spent $175,587 "to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior".
#4 The U.S. government spent $200,000 on "a tattoo removal program" in Mission Hills, California.
#5 The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn't we all love to have a "research job" like that?
#6 The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.
#7 Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.
#8 The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
#9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#10 According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies "fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program."
#11 A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
#12 China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn't stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.
#13 The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
#14 One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
#15 The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.
#16 The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions".
#17 A total of $1.8 million was spent on a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.
#18 The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
#19 U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.
#20 The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.
#21 A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
#22 One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".
#23 According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent "$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida".
#24 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations".
#25 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
#26 The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#27 The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.
#28 According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.
#29 The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a "Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia".
#30 The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 "to paint a Chinook salmon" on the side of a Boeing 737.

 

[reefraff]

That stuff right there is what I am talking about. The government spends a lot of money on a lot of stupid things. People say "It's only a couple million" but that all adds up.
I've said all along that I wouldn't say a word if they lowered freebee payments by the same percentage they want to raise taxes on the so called rich. But hey, lets just limit it matters of taxation. They want to raise taxes on the rich by about 20% when you consider the rate increases, the new 3.8% tax on investment and the cap on itemized deductions and short term gains increase. So lets lower Earned Income Credits and the 1000.00 child credit by that same 20%

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393158/trillon-dollar-tax-hike-will-cost-700-000-jobs-in-two-years-please-explain#post_3495398
I would be inclined to a tax increase IF I actually saw the government tighten their belt...and I am not talking a lame number of 110 billion over 10 years. But When people talk tax increases while maintaining government spending...I have an issue with that...especially during an economic downturn. Taking my hard earned money to sustain some lame program like PBS or any one of the following 30 items that should have been cut years ago................
#1 The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
#2 The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees.
#3 If you can believe it, the U.S. government has spent $175,587 "to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior".
#4 The U.S. government spent $200,000 on "a tattoo removal program" in Mission Hills, California.
#5 The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn't we all love to have a "research job" like that?
#6 The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.
#7 Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.
#8 The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
#9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#10 According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies "fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program."
#11 A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
#12 China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn't stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.
#13 The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
#14 One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
#15 The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.
#16 The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions".
#17 A total of $1.8 million was spent on a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.
#18 The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
#19 U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.
#20 The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.
#21 A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
#22 One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".
#23 According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent "$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida".
#24 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations".
#25 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
#26 The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#27 The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.
#28 According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.
#29 The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a "Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia".
#30 The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 "to paint a Chinook salmon" on the side of a Boeing 737.
Although I agree pork-filled spending like this needs to be eliminated, I would hope you would know this type of frivolous spending wasn't invented right when Obama was elected. Can we say "Bridge To Nowhere"? I remember seeing lists like this back in the days of Nixon and Carter. Get rid of lobbyists and corrupt Congressmen that fill actual viable bills with crap like this to appease their constituents so they can get elected another term.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393158/trillon-dollar-tax-hike-will-cost-700-000-jobs-in-two-years-please-explain#post_3495409
Although I agree pork-filled spending like this needs to be eliminated, I would hope you would know this type of frivolous spending wasn't invented right when Obama was elected. Can we say "Bridge To Nowhere"? I remember seeing lists like this back in the days of Nixon and Carter. Get rid of lobbyists and corrupt Congressmen that fill actual viable bills with crap like this to appease their constituents so they can get elected another term.
The thing that is new under 0bama is trillion dollar deficits. Bush's last budget proposal was for a 400 billion dollar deficit. The budget was finalized and signed after he left office and was a 1.1 trillion in deficit. Not blaming 0bama for that nor excusing Bush's crazy spending but Damn, a trillion in debt every year. Where I do fault 0bama is he has allowed the Senate to get away with not producing a budget for 3 years now. The stakes are WAY higher now and we have to cut out the senseless spending Democrats and dare I say it, Republicans are both slipping through. Can't do that if there is no budget to scrutinize.

 

[darthtang aw]

Although I agree pork-filled spending like this needs to be eliminated, I would hope you would know this type of frivolous spending wasn't invented right when Obama was elected.  Can we say "Bridge To Nowhere"?  I remember seeing lists like this back in the days of Nixon and Carter.  Get rid of lobbyists and corrupt Congressmen that fill actual viable bills with crap like this to appease their constituents so they can get elected another term.
I don't care who it is. If they want a TAX INCREASE they have to cut this type of crap out first.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393158/trillon-dollar-tax-hike-will-cost-700-000-jobs-in-two-years-please-explain#post_3495415
I don't care who it is. If they want a TAX INCREASE they have to cut this type of crap out first.
You won't get any argument from me. I've tried to figure out how I could create some pet project, dangle it in front of my Congressman, offer to split the windfall, take my cash and head to the Caymans...