• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats propose modest tax increase.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ayabe
This is the actual budget read it and weep
Click to expand...
Do you not realize that budget proposals are worthless beyond the one year in which they cover?

If not I can post you links to the FY 2001 budget which claimed we would have a surplus every year up to and including 2005, the last year it covered.
They only got 2005 wrong by about $500 billion.
The budget you quote probably relies on a 2-3% per year increase in the GDP, if the house market slow down causes the GDP to slow down by only 1% that would amount to a $100 billion decrease in GDP which amount to $20 billion less in actual revenue. Multiply that out over 2-3 years and you are dealing with $100 billion easy.

If you don't believe me all you have to do is pull up Bush's first budget and look at its predictions for 2006, I am willing to bet they were off by $100 billion easily.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean estimates are estimates? What a revelation. In fact why even bother, they should just keep all the money in their Congressional sock drawer and keep the receipts.

This new pay as you go paradigm is trying to put an end to the Republican led excesses in the budget for the last 6 years. So yes, this is an estimate, but an honest attempt to get the budget balanced and back in to surplus.

This isn't some magical budget that a whipped out of my ass, this is the house version of the bill. I could care less about previous budgets, Bush signed them, talk to him about it.

Here's my plan:

1. Keep taxes exactly as they are for everyone except illegals.

2. Illegals get their guest worker crap, and are taxed at a higher rate, much higher, let's say 20% higher based on their income bracket. Since a lot of them are sending money out of the country this is only fair.

3. End all faith based and abstinence programs, end tax exemption for religious organizations, they are indeed selling a service just like tarot card readers.

4. End the war on drugs, legalize pot, tax it the same as alcohol and tobacco.

5. End all financial aid to Israel.

6. National debt would be gone in a few years, SS would be solvent, and we would have more than enough left over to bolster education, defense, homeland security, you name it, we would be swimming in revenues.

But what do I know, I'm part of the reality based community.

 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ayabe
This is the actual budget read it and weep
Click to expand...
Do you not realize that budget proposals are worthless beyond the one year in which they cover?

If not I can post you links to the FY 2001 budget which claimed we would have a surplus every year up to and including 2005, the last year it covered.
They only got 2005 wrong by about $500 billion.
The budget you quote probably relies on a 2-3% per year increase in the GDP, if the house market slow down causes the GDP to slow down by only 1% that would amount to a $100 billion decrease in GDP which amount to $20 billion less in actual revenue. Multiply that out over 2-3 years and you are dealing with $100 billion easy.

If you don't believe me all you have to do is pull up Bush's first budget and look at its predictions for 2006, I am willing to bet they were off by $100 billion easily.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean estimates are estimates? What a revelation. In fact why even bother, they should just keep all the money in their Congressional sock drawer and keep the receipts.

This new pay as you go paradigm is trying to put an end to the Republican led excesses in the budget for the last 6 years. So yes, this is an estimate, but an honest attempt to get the budget balanced and back in to surplus.

This isn't some magical budget that a whipped out of my ass, this is the house version of the bill. I could care less about previous budgets, Bush signed them, talk to him about it.

Here's my plan:

1. Keep taxes exactly as they are for everyone except illegals.

2. Illegals get their guest worker crap, and are taxed at a higher rate, much higher, let's say 20% higher based on their income bracket. Since a lot of them are sending money out of the country this is only fair.

3. End all faith based and abstinence programs, end tax exemption for religious organizations, they are indeed selling a service just like tarot card readers.

4. End the war on drugs, legalize pot, tax it the same as alcohol and tobacco.

5. End all financial aid to Israel.

6. National debt would be gone in a few years, SS would be solvent, and we would have more than enough left over to bolster education, defense, homeland security, you name it, we would be swimming in revenues.

But what do I know, I'm part of the reality based community.
Click to expand...

hahahha if you really think that will solve our budget problem. Jesus you are ignorant as hell.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
SS would be solvent,
Click to expand...

no, it wouldn't. the way SS is set up (pay as you go rather than fully funded) means that it can't be solvent when population growth slows. it has to rely on a base that is much larger than the top. basically, SS can continue to be solvent as long as the rate paid out is lower than the rate that the workforce increases. the workforce basically increases with the population. and the US non-immigrant population is basically stagnant.

the fact that an FDIC insured savings account pays out a higher rate than social security is pretty much all you need to know to damn social security.
 
Originally posted by: mc00
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Haliburton is taking a loss and this war is costing that corporation a lot of out of pocket expenses.
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: mc00
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Haliburton is taking a loss and this war is costing that corporation a lot of out of pocket expenses.
Click to expand...

Excuse me 😕

That's some pretty strong stuff you're smoking there.

Of course you offer no proof whatsover. How much you paid to say that?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: mc00
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Haliburton is taking a loss and this war is costing that corporation a lot of out of pocket expenses.
Click to expand...

Excuse me 😕

That's some pretty strong stuff you're smoking there.

Of course you offer no proof whatsover. How much you paid to say that?
Click to expand...

Haliburtons Profits are coming from other non-war related sectors, but the war contract it's self is a loss.

I get paid nothing, I will post a link at a later time. Where is your link showing record profits?
EDIT:
Friday, March 30, 2007

Yeah, the NY Times of all sources... ya know the one that leans to the left.
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: mc00
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Haliburton is taking a loss and this war is costing that corporation a lot of out of pocket expenses.
Click to expand...

Excuse me 😕

That's some pretty strong stuff you're smoking there.

Of course you offer no proof whatsover. How much you paid to say that?
Click to expand...

Haliburtons Profits are coming from other non-war related sectors, but the war contract it's self is a loss.

I get paid nothing, I will post a link at a later time. Where is your link showing record profits?
EDIT:
Friday, March 30, 2007

Yeah, the NY Times of all sources... ya know the one that leans to the left.
Click to expand...

Bahahahahaha now that you guys lost power you're going to blame the "Liberal" Media :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: mc00
they should charge these taxes to war supporters and the big corp are making a lot profit off this war.... some how we gotta pay for huge bill mr idiot bush made.. I hate tax as mush as next guy.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Haliburton is taking a loss and this war is costing that corporation a lot of out of pocket expenses.
Click to expand...

Excuse me 😕

That's some pretty strong stuff you're smoking there.

Of course you offer no proof whatsover. How much you paid to say that?
Click to expand...

Haliburtons Profits are coming from other non-war related sectors, but the war contract it's self is a loss.

I get paid nothing, I will post a link at a later time. Where is your link showing record profits?
EDIT:
Friday, March 30, 2007

Yeah, the NY Times of all sources... ya know the one that leans to the left.
Click to expand...

Bahahahahaha now that you guys lost power you're going to blame the "Liberal" Media :laugh:
Click to expand...

I haven't blamed anyone. And no I will not be playing that game. If anything I would have expected the NY Times to have made a big deal out of their profits. But I am glad to see them reporting about the losses too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top