Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on January 25, 2012, 12:23:50 AM
-
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f14952869bedd8b1e000018-400-/newsweek-full-cover-barack-obama-critics.jpg)
The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
by Andrew Sullivan | January 16, 2012 12:00 AM EST
You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.
A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.
The right’s core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a “fundamental transformation” of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country.
Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.
But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.
All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.
The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.
You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.
The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It’s to the right of the Clintons’ monstrosity in 1993, and remarkably similar to Nixon’s 1974 proposal. Its passage did not preempt recovery efforts; it followed them. It needs improvement in many ways, but the administration is open to further reform and has agreed to allow states to experiment in different ways to achieve the same result. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. Yes, it crosses the Rubicon of universal access to private health care. But since federal law mandates that hospitals accept all emergency-room cases requiring treatment anyway, we already obey that socialist principle—but in the most inefficient way possible. Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent. It is, dare I say it, conservative.
On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
Obama’s foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower’s or George H.W. Bush’s, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage. It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by “leading from behind” in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America’s help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly.
But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.
They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.
What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.
Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.
And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.
This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank—and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Nothing in his first term—including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care—can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.
Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.
Sure, Obama cannot regain the extraordinary promise of 2008. We’ve already elected the nation’s first black president and replaced a tongue-tied dauphin with a man of peerless eloquence. And he has certainly failed to end Washington’s brutal ideological polarization, as he pledged to do. But most Americans in polls rightly see him as less culpable for this impasse than the GOP. Obama has steadfastly refrained from waging the culture war, while the right has accused him of a “war against religion.” He has offered to cut entitlements (and has already cut Medicare), while the Republicans have refused to raise a single dollar of net revenue from anyone. Even the most austerity-driven government in Europe, the British Tories, are to the left of that. And it is this Republican intransigence—from the 2009 declaration by Rush Limbaugh that he wants Obama “to fail” to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s admission that his primary objective is denying Obama a second term—that has been truly responsible for the deadlock. And the only way out of that deadlock is an electoral rout of the GOP, since the language of victory and defeat seems to be the only thing it understands.
If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.
-
Cliff notes:
Obama has vastly improved the economy.
Anything negative is still Bush's fault....including failure to keep campaign promises.
Obama is solely responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
9/11 was a breeze to handle, but this economy shit is tough.
The stimulus package was actually successful. I think this is what pisses me off the most about this article. "It put a bottom under the free fall." Are you fucking serious? It perpetuated the problem that caused this shit in the first place. It put off the inevitable. You can't just dump money that doesn't exist into an economy and expect it to right the ship. That is what keeps fucking us, and people just don't get it. The government can't create free market. Free market isn't defined as the government swooping in to save your ass when your product doesn't sell. You can't throw all of this imaginary money into the economy for people to buy shit and hope it lasts. It's the same line of thinking that caused the housing bubble to burst. Oh, let's make sure everybody can get a mortgage. They can't afford it? Fuck it, let's regulate it where they can get a mortgage. While neither Bush nor Obama created that policy, the way the government just injects money into the economy follows the same ideaology.
Look, Bush didn't really do us many favors while he was in office. No matter who got elected after him, whether Republican or Democrat, they were going to fuck it up too when you look at our choices. So I don't really have a whole lot against Obama. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Obama is stinking it up along the same lines Bush did, if not worse. Obama simply has a bigger following, and can mask it a whole hell of a lot better. And the sad part is, there isn't really any candidate on the horizon that has a great plan on unfucking anything Bush or Obama fucked up.
-
Consider your source Chizad.
1. Newsweek's circulation has went in the toliet the last 3-4 years (look it up if you wish). They needed a "shock" article.
2. This is the same guy that said Sarah Palin's down syndrome child wasn't really hers in 2008 and proceeded to poke fun at both of them. Guy is a real sweetheart.
-
Debate must be easy when all you have to do is attack the source, instead of dispute the substance.
Especially when you perceive everyone who isn't right of Rick Santorum to be a malicious loony lefty. I like Andrew Sullivan. And yes, I know he's gay. I also remember when he, like me, used to refer to himself as a Republican, and also like me, had been relegated to "right-leaning independent".
I agree with the premise of this article. My Facebook timeline is flooded with "Socialist this" and "Muslim pacifist that", and I even hear that type of rhetoric from people whose intelligence and opinions I respect on this board. I also see lefties like Bill Maher bitch about how he's not the radical, the "change", they voted for.
I see a president, not a golden God, but not a complete fuck-up or radical either. The one policy I disagree with the President on the most is healthcare reform, but as this article points out, it's not as radical and socialized as it is frequently labled. I think everyone agreed that healthcare needed some type of reform, and this is far from a European system where the government owns every hospital and employs every doctor, despite what my Facebook friends may say. Obama gave the entire system to the private drug companies and insurance companies, but provided some subsidies so that the poor can afford it. That policy is practically a carbon copy of Romney Care, which the Heritage Foundation was all on board with. A little to the left of my preference, but hardly Mao Zedong shit.
I've made some of these points on here before about him taking out pretty much every one of America's enemies, yet people say he's a pacifist, and even a "secret Muslim" working against our country's best interests. I have also previously mentioned that I felt exactly the same way in 2004, when the hippie radicals were out in full force trying to say Bush was "hands down, the worst President of all time", and that essentially he ate babies and puppies for breakfast. It was ignorant then, and it's ignorant now.
-
Its all good. He is not a socialist. He never studied under a Marxist. He has our best interests at heart. He really isn't that bad. He single-handed killed all of the top terrorists. If everyone would just give him another chance....
What a difference a 15 year generation gap makes.
-
Its all good. He is not a socialist. He never studied under a Marxist.
I'm assuming by your sarcasm that you are saying that he is a socialist. Maybe if you also think Clinton, and anyone else remotely left of center is a socialist. Link? Are you sure you're not thinking of Chris Coons? And what does "studied under a Marxist" mean exactly? I went to college, so I probably did too at some point.
He has our best interests at heart.
So you really believe that the President of the United States, does not have the country's best interest at heart? You really believe that he is intentionally trying to destroy the country from within? Whether you agree with his policies or not, are you seriously trying to imply that the President of the United States wants to destroy the country?
He really isn't that bad. He single-handed killed all of the top terrorists. If everyone would just give him another chance....
Did he not? No, I realize he didn't "single handedly", as in pull the trigger himself, but that is a ridiculous notion to begin with. Did Bush? Has any President ever "single-handedly" murdered a terrorist? I'm pretty sure the discussion is that under his watch, America is kicking dictator/terrorist ass, which we were unable to do under Bush, outside of Saddam Hussein. We won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush didn't do in eight years. Bush flat out said he concerned about Bin Laden anymore.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g#)
Obama came in and told the CIA that this was going to be priority again, and personally approved a specific plan to go in and take him out, involving a helicopter raid and a B-52 Stealth Bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden).
In addition to a helicopter raid, planners considered attacking the compound with B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. They considered a joint operation with Pakistani forces. Obama, however, decided that the Pakistani government and military could not be trusted to maintain operational security for the operation against bin Laden. "There was a real lack of confidence that the Pakistanis could keep this secret for more than a nanosecond," a senior adviser to the President told The New Yorker.
-
Debate must be easy when all you have to do is attack the source, instead of dispute the substance.
Especially when you perceive everyone who isn't right of Rick Santorum to be a malicious loony lefty. I like Andrew Sullivan. And yes, I know he's gay. I also remember when he, like me, used to refer to himself as a Republican, and also like me, had been relegated to "right-leaning independent".
I agree with the premise of this article. My Facebook timeline is flooded with "Socialist this" and "Muslim pacifist that", and I even hear that type of rhetoric from people whose intelligence and opinions I respect on this board. I also see lefties like Bill Maher bitch about how he's not the radical, the "change", they voted for.
I see a president, not a golden God, but not a complete fuck-up or radical either. The one policy I disagree with the President on the most is healthcare reform, but as this article points out, it's not as radical and socialized as it is frequently labled. I think everyone agreed that healthcare needed some type of reform, and this is far from a European system where the government owns every hospital and employs every doctor, despite what my Facebook friends may say. Obama gave the entire system to the private drug companies and insurance companies, but provided some subsidies so that the poor can afford it. That policy is practically a carbon copy of Romney Care, which the Heritage Foundation was all on board with. A little to the left of my preference, but hardly Mao Zedong shit.
I've made some of these points on here before about him taking out pretty much every one of America's enemies, yet people say he's a pacifist, and even a "secret Muslim" working against our country's best interests. I have also previously mentioned that I felt exactly the same way in 2004, when the hippie radicals were out in full force trying to say Bush was "hands down, the worst President of all time", and that essentially he ate babies and puppies for breakfast. It was ignorant then, and it's ignorant now.
Ok, the substance is rhetorical. Better? Choice words can slant anything in either direction desired. And I had no idea Sullivan was gay until YOU brought it up. What I do know is that he IS a hack. To be fair (just for you), I also think Joe Scarborough is a hack as well. So is Ann Coulter.
You have a long way to go in politics Chizad. I say this because you, like many Democrats, continue to use Bush as a comparison for success. Bush and Obama are not mutually exclusive - they both share a lot of the same bad principles. Invoking GW Bush's bad policies is not an excuse to promote equally bad or worse policies by Obama now.
As far as HC reform goes, you could not be more wrong. Implementing a mandate to buy a good or service AND gov't having access to your DDA if you don't comply - written in very vague subjective language - is EXTREMELY radical.
When empathy or non quantitative arguments are used as a majority of the debate, logic is missed. This is what I see a lot in Democrats today. A nice mix of logic and empathy is needed with more emphasis on logic.
When individuals possess intellectual skills alone, without the intellectual traits of mind, weak sense critical thinking results. Fair-minded or strong sense critical thinking requires intellectual humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, courage, autonomy, confidence in reason, and other intellectual traits. Thus, critical thinking without essential intellectual traits often results in clever, but manipulative and often unethical or subjective thought.
-
He is not a socialist. He never studied under a Marxist.
That can't be true....
(http://ideapalooza.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obama-chalkboard.jpg)
-
So citing a theory of the "father of community organizing" in a lecture on community organizing means you're one of his disciples who "studied under him"?
-
More puke from the elites... You attack the critics for being stupid and excuse all of the Chosen One's failures by claiming they were successes, ignoring those inconvenient facts along the way. They call that spin... These Leftist goon tactics throughout the media and the entertainment industries are exactly why right-wing radio, FOX News and other alternative news media have been so successful. A conservative-minded independent would have never voted for anything like Obama. Anybody claiming to be remotely conservative hated George Bush's spending record, but we would have never voted for the alternative, because it would have been far worse.
-
Meanwhile...
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php)
"My Message is Simple": Obama's SOTU Written at 8th Grade Level for Third Straight Year
By Eric Ostermeier on January 25, 2012
Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR
-
Meanwhile...
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php)
Say what you want, but the man knows his audience. http://www.whatmakesthemclick.net/2011/01/23/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-54-the-average-reading-level-in-the-usa-is-grade-8/ (http://www.whatmakesthemclick.net/2011/01/23/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-54-the-average-reading-level-in-the-usa-is-grade-8/)
Then again, I don't really consider "whatmakestheclick.net" a credible source.
-
Say what you want, but the man knows his audience. http://www.whatmakesthemclick.net/2011/01/23/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-54-the-average-reading-level-in-the-usa-is-grade-8/ (http://www.whatmakesthemclick.net/2011/01/23/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-54-the-average-reading-level-in-the-usa-is-grade-8/)
Then again, I don't really consider "whatmakestheclick.net" a credible source.
I believe that's exactly it. He's intentionally focusing his messages to appeal to the less educated.
-
I think they are all full of shit.
But this:
Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
is bullshit... and Rah Rah fluff. He had about as much to do with that as I did.
We just need someone who will stop spending money and handle the fucking deficit problem before our Treasury Bonds/Yields end up like Greece.
-
I think they are all full of shit.
But this:
is bullshit... and Rah Rah fluff. He had about as much to do with that as I did.
We just need someone who will stop spending money and handle the fucking deficit problem before our Treasury Bonds/Yields end up like Greece.
DING!................DING!...............DING!
No other topic matters if there is no country left in a few years. Get the money straight, then fight about how many times a guy is allowed to marry and divorce!
-
But this:
is bullshit... and Rah Rah fluff. He had about as much to do with that as I did.
Please elaborate. How were you involved as much as the President of the United States who ordered Operation Neptune Spear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden)
President Obama met with the National Security Council on March 14 to review the options. The president was concerned that the mission would be exposed and wanted to proceed quickly. For that reason he ruled out involving the Pakistanis. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military officials expressed doubts as to whether bin Laden was actually in the compound, and whether a commando raid was worth the risk. At the end of the meeting the president seemed to be leaning toward a bombing mission. Two US Air Force officers were tasked with exploring that option further.[41]
The CIA was unable to rule out the existence of an underground bunker below the compound. Presuming that one existed, 32 2,000-pound (910 kg) Joint Direct Attack Munitions would be required to destroy it.[42] With that amount of ordnance, at least one other house was in the blast radius. Estimates were that up to a dozen civilians would be killed in addition to those in the compound. Furthermore it was unlikely there would be enough evidence remaining to prove that bin Laden was dead. Presented with this information at the next Security Council meeting on March 29, President Obama put the bombing plan on hold. Instead he directed Admiral McRaven to develop the idea of a helicopter raid.
It's just flat-out obtuse to suggest that Obama played no part in the removal of Osama Bin Laden.
-
The "Chocolate City" has claimed another victim......
-
I quit reading right here and won't take another word of the article seriously.
Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death.
Yeah, b/c that is exactly what Bush did. He ignored Bin Laden. To take your own words, it would be just flat-out obtuse to suggest that Bush ignored Bin Laden his last 4 years and it was all Obama who took him down.
I am a critic of Obama, I guess I am dumb too.
-
Please elaborate. How were you involved as much as the President of the United States who ordered Operation Neptune Spear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden)
It's just flat-out obtuse to suggest that Obama played no part in the removal of Osama Bin Laden.
I didn't say he had no part. I'm just saying that he had a tiny role, but claimed the whole thing when it happened.
For someone to attempt to give him all the credit is obtuse. Bush had his hand in it as well. Along with others. The statement about Bush ignoring Bin Laden is retarded.
There are tons of Newspaper articles out there regarding CIA director Panetta and Obama.
-
I didn't say he had no part. I'm just saying that he had a tiny role, but claimed the whole thing when it happened.
For someone to attempt to give him all the credit is obtuse. Bush had his hand in it as well. Along with others. The statement about Bush ignoring Bin Laden is retarded.
I posted a video of him flat-out saying it.
And he sure didn't take him out in the eight years we were at war in Afghanistan while he was President.
There are tons of Newspaper articles out there regarding CIA director Panetta and Obama.
Yeah there are.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june11/panetta_05-03.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june11/panetta_05-03.html)
CIA Chief Panetta: Obama Made 'Gutsy' Decision on Bin Laden Raid
-
Bin Laden went into hiding, presumably tucked way back in the mountains of Afghanistan and other places. All indications are, he stayed on the run and obviously had an entire network of people helping him hide out. I don't imagine anyone under Bush or Obama ever stopped looking for him. He finally ran out of hiding places or came across someone not so loyal to him that was willing to tip off the U.S. as to his whereabouts. They found him, the options were laid out before the President and he decided on the best one...take the bastard out. Had they found him under President Bush, I have no doubts he would have chosen the option of taking the bastard out too. This not a coup for Obama and he did nothing special to track the pig down. He simply said yes to the greatest fighting unit in the world. That's what President Obama should be applauded for. Making the right decision.
-
Bin Laden went into hiding, presumably tucked way back in the mountains of Afghanistan and other places. All indications are, he stayed on the run and obviously had an entire network of people helping him hide out. I don't imagine anyone under Bush or Obama ever stopped looking for him. He finally ran out of hiding places or came across someone not so loyal to him that was willing to tip off the U.S. as to his whereabouts. They found him, the options were laid out before the President and he decided on the best one...take the bastard out. Had they found him under President Bush, I have no doubts he would have chosen the option of taking the bastard out too. This not a coup for Obama and he did nothing special to track the pig down. He simply said yes to the greatest fighting unit in the world. That's what President Obama should be applauded for. Making the right decision.
In the very least, recognize this.
If he was the "terrorist sympathist" that people, even in this thread, are painting him as, he would not have "made the right decision".
I'm not sitting here trying to say that he was in one of the helicopters or he designed the strategy himself. I'm saying he ordered it. He also did instruct the CIA to reshift focus to killing (not capturing) Bin Laden as priority number one. This is not something that Andrew Sullivan just made up.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_05/029219.php (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_05/029219.php)
PLENTY OF CREDIT TO GO AROUND, STARTING AT THE TOP.... The amount of work that went into tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden is pretty extraordinary. It took years, and involved military, law enforcement, and intelligence agency officials, most of whom we'll never know and won't be able to thank.
And while many patriots made this happen, it's President Obama who'll get much of the credit -- and given the circumstances, he'll deserve it. Slate's John Dickerson had a good piece overnight on how Obama's "focused, hands-on pursuit of Osama Bin Laden paid off."
At approximately 11:30 p.m. Sunday, President Obama announced to the nation that on his orders U.S forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. His reputation for lawyerly inaction may never recover.
Obama's critics have said that he is a weak leader in general and in particular does not understand what must be done to combat terrorism. "They are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required," said former Vice President Dick Cheney in March 2009, in a typical remark. Yet what emerges from the details of Bin Laden's killing (offered, like the heroic accounts of the Bush years, entirely by officials who work for the sitting president) is that from early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout.
In June 2009, Obama directed his CIA director to "provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice" Osama Bin Laden. By August 2010 intelligence officials had identified the suspicious compound where Osama lived.
Dickerson's description of the president's efforts as "hands-on" seems especially apt given what we know. It was Obama who instructed the CIA to make targeting bin Laden a top priority, breaking with his predecessor. It was Obama who oversaw five national security meetings to oversee plans for this operation. It was Obama who chose this mission, made final preparations, and gave the order.
There's a difference between talking tough and being tough, just as there's a difference between chest-thumping rhetoric and getting the job done.
-
I am a critic of Obama, I guess I am dumb too.
Obviously, the title of the article is intended to get a rile out of people.
And just for clarity, it's not my title.
Obviously, being critical of the President's policies is perfectly reasonable. I myself am critical of many of them, if we're using the term loosely.
Choosing your own reality to support a bias is what I have a problem with.
-
I think they are all full of shit.
But this:
is bullshit... and Rah Rah fluff. He had about as much to do with that as I did.
We just need someone who will stop spending money and handle the fucking deficit problem before our Treasury Bonds/Yields end up like Greece.
AWK gets it.
In the end, this is all that really matters. But then again, most that support this guy don't remotely understand economics and how our debt really works. We will be Greece X 10 if this keeps up.
FWIW - on the little chart GarMan posted, what I think gets lost is their is a 4 year portion that shows a surplus. Yes, that was a Gingrich/Clinton collaboration. Economically, Newt knows what he is doing - love him or hate him personally. The track record of economic success is there.
-
AWK gets it.
In the end, this is all that really matters. But then again, most that support this guy don't remotely understand economics and how our debt really works. We will be Greece X 10 if this keeps up.
FWIW - on the little chart GarMan posted, what I think gets lost is their is a 4 year portion that shows a surplus. Yes, that was a Gingrich/Clinton collaboration. Economically, Newt knows what he is doing - love him or hate him personally. The track record of economic success is there.
Newt and Trent Lott forced Slick Willies hand in a lot of things he didn't want to get that accomplished.
Obviously, the title of the article is intended to get a rile out of people.
And just for clarity, it's not my title.
Obviously, being critical of the President's policies is perfectly reasonable. I myself am critical of many of them, if we're using the term loosely.
Choosing your own reality to support a bias is what I have a problem with.
I am not riled with the article. I just think it's a joke. Nothing more or nothing less. I promise you I won't lose sleep over it.
In the very least, recognize this.
If he was the "terrorist sympathist" that people, even in this thread, are painting him as, he would not have "made the right decision".
I'm not sitting here trying to say that he was in one of the helicopters or he designed the strategy himself. I'm saying he ordered it. He also did instruct the CIA to reshift focus to killing (not capturing) Bin Laden as priority number one. This is not something that Andrew Sullivan just made up.
I'm not sitting here saying that he didn't have something to do with it, as in giving the order to the plan he felt was the best according to the intel that he was given. What I am sitting here saying is this: To say Bush "ignored" Bin Laden is bullshit. Look, I hate Bush with a passion. The wrong Bush ran for President in 2000. It should have been Jeb and I will forever be pissed b/c W ruined his chances. He was fucking horrible. He spent way too much money, and never used his veto stamp the way he should have. Not to mention NCLB bullshit he pushed through.........anywho......I will call bullshit and defend him when someone says something as ignorant as that.
Do you really believe that Bush just said "Ah, Fuck it, No sense in going after Bin Laden, let the next guy take care of it." and Obama just came in and made it all possible?
-
Obviously, the title of the article is intended to get a rile out of people.
And just for clarity, it's not my title.
Obviously, being critical of the President's policies is perfectly reasonable. I myself am critical of many of them, if we're using the term loosely.
Choosing your own reality to support a bias is what I have a problem with.
How is AUT1 choosing his own reality if his complaints are backed with facts? Its his opinion. He doesn't like the state of the country. I don't blame him. The country is in the shitter right now. THAT is reality.
-
Newt and Trent Lott forced Slick Willies hand in a lot of things he didn't want to get that accomplished.
He knew/knows a lot of dirt on people in DC. Enough that he was able to get things done (some call it blackmail) and thus eventually bring about ethics charges because of it. Dick Morris has went on record saying that Bill's best decision was to have sense enough to go to the middle. He rode with Newt and Trent to the contract with america and the rest is history. 94-2000 were good times.
-
Do you really believe that Bush just said "Ah, Fuck it, No sense in going after Bin Laden, let the next guy take care of it." and Obama just came in and made it all possible?
He shifted focus away making taking out Osama Bin Laden objective #1 in the war. He shifted his focus away from the orchestrators of 9/11 and towards Iraq.
Don't take my word for it, ask Bush himself. I don't know what else to say but watch the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g#)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden)
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
I remember when he gave this address, many here were bitching about his use of the word "I". It's because he did that shit. Unless you truly believe he just made all that shit up, and flat-out lied in an address. Like no one who actually knows shit about the goings-on in the CIA wouldn't call him on it. If you believe that those statements from him are a fabrication, then you fall into the category the article in the OP was directed towards.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367545.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367545.shtml)
Then came what many here see as the gravest error of all: Afghans were wary as the U.S. turned its attention to invading Iraq - and they were right. Everything from reconstruction and aid to the fight itself suffered as the U.S. shifted its resources and its focus away from Afghanistan and the commitment it had made to the Afghan people.
Also, Bush failed to "make the right decision" in 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62618-2002Apr16¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62618-2002Apr16¬Found=true)
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.
-
FWIW - on the little chart GarMan posted, what I think gets lost is their is a 4 year portion that shows a surplus.
Charts. How them shits work?
(http://www.politicalruminations.com/images/charts-graphs/debt-bush-obama-chart.jpg)(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6088811201_96839c6977.jpg)
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e1b040549e2aeb51a1b0000-623-376/us-federal-budget-deficit-2000-2011.jpg)
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e1af71bcadcbba41d1e0000-619-373/federal-government-spending-2000-2011.png)
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/DeficitChart.png)(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/Budget2.jpg)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png)
DISCLAIMER: The charts posted above aren't meant to prove or disprove any particular point. In fact, you'll notice that some of them favor Obama, while others don't. They are simply meant to show that charts will differ based upon a variety of factors, including how data is grouped, who specific data is attributed to, where the data was obtained from, etc.
-
He shifted focus away making taking out Osama Bin Laden objective #1 in the war. He shifted his focus away from the orchestrators of 9/11 and towards Iraq.
Don't take my word for it, ask Bush himself. I don't know what else to say but watch the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g#)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden)
I remember when he gave this address, many here were bitching about his use of the word "I". It's because he did that shit. Unless you truly believe he just made all that shit up, and flat-out lied in an address. Like no one who actually knows shit about the goings-on in the CIA wouldn't call him on it. If you believe that those statements from him are a fabrication, then you fall into the category the article in the OP was directed towards.
Goddamn. I didn't say that Obama didn't have anything to do with it. I am giving him credit for what he did, but he didn't do it all himself. Who laid the groundwork? Who was president when that groundwork was laid?
Also, shifting attention is not the same as ignoring. To ignore something means you fail to consider it, or you simply disregard something. Bush did not just simply forget about Bin Laden. There was shit tons of intelligence work that was being done in Afghanistan and Pakistan while the war in Iraq was being fought. Now, the shit getting rocky in Iraq did make him shift his focus, but to claim that he just flat out ignored Bin Laden and it was all Obama is bullshit and you know it. You bitch about "us'' "Choosing your own reality to support a bias" and you don't think the author of the article isn't doing the same with a statement like that. His intentions with that line was to make people believe that Bush just "Fuck it, I don't care about no Bin Laden". Oh, and :fu: for making me defend Bush.
Once again I will ask: Do you really believe that Bush just said "Ah, Fuck it, No sense in going after Bin Laden, let the next guy take care of it." and Obama just came in and made it all possible? Knowing that there were troops on the ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and intelligence gathering going on you still believe that?
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367545.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367545.shtml)
Also, Bush failed to "make the right decision" in 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62618-2002Apr16¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62618-2002Apr16¬Found=true)
Amazing how in April of 2002 a full one year before we went into Iraq Bush had already said "Fuck it, ignore his ass, I am more interested in other things, oh look at butterfly" and ignored Bin Laden isn't it?
-
:facepalm:
-
I posted a video of him flat-out saying it.
And he sure didn't take him out in the eight years we were at war in Afghanistan while he was President.
Yeah there are.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june11/panetta_05-03.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june11/panetta_05-03.html)
It's called press talk, fluff, coach speak. I'm sure had Bush had the chance to kill Osama, he would have said no... I love how you base an entire argument on a press conference from 2002.
Regardless, saying that Bush didn't take him out in his eight years and therefore does not deserve credit is just wrong. I'm sure it was no easy task of tracking him down. Plus, he laid a lot of the ground work to finally find and kill him, as was stated by Obama. I'm sure Obama worked at it too, and gave the "order", but anyone could have given the order. That is the very end of the process. FDR did not live until the end of WWII, therefore, the victory and all credit goes to Truman. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs. Same logic.
Granted, I did not agree with a lot of things Bush did as President, I can look at this objectively. That part of the article was a rah rah piece. Republicans do it too.
Enjoy this one:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-shooting-obama-takes-the-plaudits-did-panetta-take-the-decision/ (http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-shooting-obama-takes-the-plaudits-did-panetta-take-the-decision/)
or
http://patdollard.com/2011/05/obama-hesitated-%E2%80%93-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/ (http://patdollard.com/2011/05/obama-hesitated-%E2%80%93-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/)
-
Enjoy this one:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-shooting-obama-takes-the-plaudits-did-panetta-take-the-decision/ (http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-shooting-obama-takes-the-plaudits-did-panetta-take-the-decision/)
This was pointed out when Wench posted this information awhile back, but I'll bring it up again.
The "article" to which this story refers was actually a blog written by a guy with the posting name of "Ulsterman." A quick search of his previous blogs includes a variety of Obama bashing pieces, including a blog entry which claims that (then Senator) Obama banged a dude in a public restroom, got caught doing so by an intern, and then said intern disappeared after Obama supposedly had him assassinated.
Did Ulsterman speak to an insider? I don't know. Was Obama hesitant? I don't know. Did Panetta actually call the shots? I don't know; Panetta has publicly stated otherwise, but maybe it's a cover-up and Panetta was forced to publicly lie. All I'm saying is be wary of the source of this so-called "article" with "insider" information.
or
http://patdollard.com/2011/05/obama-hesitated-%E2%80%93-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/ (http://patdollard.com/2011/05/obama-hesitated-%E2%80%93-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/)
This article uses the same wording from the insider that Ulsterman provided, so I'm assuming Ulsterman was also the source of this information. Again, not saying it did or didn't happen; just saying that the ultimate source appears to be relatively not credible.
Or maybe Obama really is a faggot assassin. Who knows...
-
This was pointed out when Wench posted this information awhile back, but I'll bring it up again.
The "article" to which this story refers was actually a blog written by a guy with the posting name of "Ulsterman." A quick search of his previous blogs includes a variety of Obama bashing pieces, including a blog entry which claims that (then Senator) Obama banged a dude in a public restroom, got caught doing so by an intern, and then said intern disappeared after Obama supposedly had him assassinated.
Did Ulsterman speak to an insider? I don't know. Was Obama hesitant? I don't know. Did Panetta actually call the shots? I don't know; Panetta has publicly stated otherwise, but maybe it's a cover-up and Panetta was forced to publicly lie. All I'm saying is be wary of the source of this so-called "article" with "insider" information.
This article uses the same wording from the insider that Ulsterman provided, so I'm assuming Ulsterman was also the source of this information. Again, not saying it did or didn't happen; just saying that the ultimate source appears to be relatively not credible.
Or maybe Obama really is a faggot assassin. Who knows...
Yeah, I know. Those articles were made half in jest towards Chizad. Hell, they are probably full of shit. Still, giving Obama all the credit is dumb.
Regardless, this is the what I talked about earlier that worries me and I want handled ASAP...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/markets/thebuzz/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/markets/thebuzz/index.htm)
-
It's called press talk, fluff, coach speak. I'm sure had Bush had the chance to kill Osama, he would have said no... I love how you base an entire argument on a press conference from 2002.
Regardless, saying that Bush didn't take him out in his eight years and therefore does not deserve credit is just wrong. I'm sure it was no easy task of tracking him down. Plus, he laid a lot of the ground work to finally find and kill him, as was stated by Obama. I'm sure Obama worked at it too, and gave the "order", but anyone could have given the order. That is the very end of the process. FDR did not live until the end of WWII, therefore, the victory and all credit goes to Truman. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs. Same logic.
Granted, I did not agree with a lot of things Bush did as President, I can look at this objectively. That part of the article was a rah rah piece. Republicans do it too.
So let me get this straight: Obama "had about as much to do with (taking out Bin Laden) as (you) did."
People in this thread, including yourself, go on to argue that he wasn't the military mind that devised the plan, nor was he there to actually carry it out, which of course is ridiculous and never once did I imply that he did.
Obama finishes the job that Bush never did, for whatever reason, and Bush is suddenly the military genius that devised the whole thing? Are you serious, Clark?
Also, it is argued that "Bush would have done the same thing, given the chance"
I provide a link from the Washington Post (let me guess, they're a librul shill that doesn't speak the truth like Ulsterman.blogspot.com. :taunt:) that states that CIA and military officials with first hand knowledge claimed they fucked up in Tora Bora.
I think you're playing semantics if you take the authors use of the phrase "Bush's policy of ignoring Bin Laden" as absolutely literal. You're splitting hairs trying to make the author's position that Bush would have just turned around and walked the other way if he had him in his crosshairs, which of course is absurd. Shifting focus, away from Bin Laden (and towards Iraq) is clearly what he meant.
-
So let me get this straight: Obama "had about as much to do with (taking out Bin Laden) as (you) did."
People in this thread, including yourself, go on to argue that he wasn't the military mind that devised the plan, nor was he there to actually carry it out, which of course is ridiculous and never once did I imply that he did.
Obama finishes the job that Bush never did, for whatever reason, and Bush is suddenly the military genius that devised the whole thing? Are you serious, Clark?
Did Bush send troops into Afghanistan? Were troops fighting the Taliban? Who was the leader of the Taliban? Did they chase Osama out of Afghanistan? Did they kill leaders of the Taliban? Did they happen onto any intel while fighting? Never said he was a mastermind, but he had at least as much to do with finding and killing Osama as Obama.
You ignore this: FDR did not live until the end of WWII, therefore, the victory and all credit goes to Truman. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs. Same logic.
The article does not give credit where credit is due, and that is rah rah bullshit.
Also, it is argued that "Bush would have done the same thing, given the chance"
I provide a link from the Washington Post (let me guess, they're a librul shill that doesn't speak the truth like Ulsterman.blogspot.com. :taunt:) that states that CIA and military officials with first hand knowledge claimed they fucked up in Tora Bora.
I think you're playing semantics if you take the authors use of the phrase "Bush's policy of ignoring Bin Laden" as absolutely literal. You're splitting hairs trying to make the author's position that Bush would have just turned around and walked the other way if he had him in his crosshairs, which of course is absurd. Shifting focus, away from Bin Laden (and towards Iraq) is clearly what he meant.
You can't argue either way, because we don't know what he would have done nor if he ever had the unequivocal chance. I personally doubt someone would just say "No.", though
-
Did Bush send troops into Afghanistan? Were troops fighting the Taliban? Who was the leader of the Taliban? Did they chase Osama out of Afghanistan? Did they kill leaders of the Taliban? Did they happen onto any intel while fighting? Never said he was a mastermind, but he had at least as much to do with finding and killing Osama as Obama.
You ignore this: FDR did not live until the end of WWII, therefore, the victory and all credit goes to Truman. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs. Same logic.
The article does not give credit where credit is due, and that is rah rah bullshit.
You can't argue either way, because we don't know what he would have done nor if he ever had the unequivocal chance. I personally doubt someone would just say "No.", though
Still missing the point.
I. Am. Not. Saying. Bush. Would. Have. Let. Bin. Laden. Loose. If. He. Was. Given. The Chance.
I don't believe Sullivan was, either. You're all right, that would be an absurd claim. To say that any single US citizen who is NOT a member of Al-Qaeda wouldn't put a bullet in his head, given the chance, is absurd. It's also not the argument.
I'm saying Bush did fail militarily when he had the opportunity to take him out. As cited. So yeah, you can say that Obama was successful where Bush failed in finding and killing Bin Laden. You can say he shifted military focus back to finding and killing Bin Laden.
The whole reason this is even mentioned in the article, and hence why we're discussing it now is because so many on the right fail to recognize it as an accomplishment at all. Bush did all the work, Obama just was in the right place at the right time. And even to acknowledge that he did order Operation Neptune Spear is a contradiction to the rhetoric that he's a pacifist with no balls who secretly wants to destroy America from within, because he's a jihadist himself. That's the kind of barking lunacy the article is disputing.
-
Still missing the point.
I. Am. Not. Saying. Bush. Would. Have. Let. Bin. Laden. Loose. If. He. Was. Given. The Chance.
I don't believe Sullivan was, either. You're all right, that would be an absurd claim. To say that any single US citizen who is NOT a member of Al-Qaeda wouldn't put a bullet in his head, given the chance, is absurd. It's also not the argument.
I'm saying Bush did fail militarily when he had the opportunity to take him out. As cited. So yeah, you can say that Obama was successful where Bush failed in finding and killing Bin Laden. You can say he shifted military focus back to finding and killing Bin Laden.
The whole reason this is even mentioned in the article, and hence why we're discussing it now is because so many on the right fail to recognize it as an accomplishment at all. Bush did all the work, Obama just was in the right place at the right time. And even to acknowledge that he did order Operation Neptune Spear is a contradiction to the rhetoric that he's a pacifist with no balls who secretly wants to destroy America from within, because he's a jihadist himself. That's the kind of barking lunacy the article is disputing.
Why do you hate America?
I kid. What I said in reference to Bush killing him or letting him loose was this...
You can't argue either way, because we don't know what he would have done nor if he ever had the unequivocal chance. I personally doubt someone would just say "No.", though
Modify message
Like I said, I agree with you in that I think Obama deserves credit... but so does Bush. Not all one or the other.
-
Charts. How them shits work?
DISCLAIMER: The charts posted above aren't meant to prove or disprove any particular point. In fact, you'll notice that some of them favor Obama, while others don't. They are simply meant to show that charts will differ based upon a variety of factors, including how data is grouped, who specific data is attributed to, where the data was obtained from, etc.
Government projections are almost always wrong, and they are worse the further they attempt to project. We used to call that smoke and mirrors... Many of the charts that you posted use a lot of fairy tale information based on silly forecasts and absurd predictions. Besides the contradictions, some even anticipated a turnaround in 2011, which obviously never occurred as we now know. I particularly enjoyed the spending policy comparisons. How people can be taken seriously making up phony numbers is well beyond reason. You won't stay employed long if you play those games in the private sector. At least my chart was based on historical data through 2010. We're still waiting for an accurate deficit tally for 2011. I suspect something greater than $1.5T.
:puke:
Thanks for playing!
-
At least my chart was based on historical data through 2010.
Orly?
The chart claims to have a source of the Office of Management and Budget. However, the chart was actually created by Jim Hoft (http://www.captainscomments.com/comment/812), proprietor of the Gateway Pundit, a self proclaimed "major resource for right of center news (http://biggovernment.com/author/jhoft/)." Good ole Jimmy has been known to fudge charts (http://thinkingmeat.net/2008/05/14/busted-jim-hoft-posts-another-deliberately-misleading-chart) in order to imply that the political right is in the ethical right.
Hoft's articles claim (and his chart reflects) that the deficit in 2008 when Bush was still in office was under $500 billion. This leaves out one glaring fact: several key budget decisions that were passed in 2008 wouldn't take effect until 2009. Such as the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that was passed in late 2008. Notice how the fiscal year in the chart ended in September 2008, yet the bailout was not passed until October 2008, thereby attributing all of the Bush-initiated bailout to Obama? Yet there's no disclaimer pointing out this teeny tiny $700+ billion fact? Tricky Jimmy.
Not to mention that the ultimate price tag of the bailout may have been more than the proposed $700 billion (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/), and thus all of the claims that these debts (plus interest) have been paid back may be falsely calculated due to misstatements about the total amount spent.
I'm not going to go scouring through government documents (assuming that those are even accurate anyhow, considering that the government has lost track of trillions of dollars (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml)) in order to compare a chart made by a biased, amateur political commentator with figures from reports. My only point was, and still is, that charts can be created by anyone, and can be created in such a manner so as to be extremely misleading. Just like ole Jimmy loves them to be.
No sir...thank you for playing.
-
Fuck charts and all of this noise.
You want to fix the country?
Federal government runs the military, interstate system, and basic national needs such as national parks and disease control.
Give local governments more control, and let people be themselves. If people are going to be lazy, they don't eat. If people are going to work hard at a job that isn't relevant, they don't eat. If people understand what their local area needs and works hard at meeting those needs, they eat.
It's simple.
The Eatin' Party. Vote for me.
-
That article was loaded with excrement and topped with turd flakes.
That's really all that needs to be said. There is no reason to have a substantive debate because there's nothing of true substance there.
I loathe the current political climate. There is no middle, only extremes. There is the freaky far left -- Obama, who is essentially a socialist in thought and deed -- and then the left leaning which includes Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and the entire bunch floated out by the Republicans. All this babble about "conservatives" and "the right" there IS no right any more. Only degrees of left.
I'm sickened by the slate of Republican candidates. Chairman Maobama is the weakest incumbent president in my memory. He's almost as vulnerable as Hoover (who I don't remember because I wasn't alive). Any legitimate Republican candidate with a smidgen of vision would trounce the stuffed shirt, do-nothing pretender. The Republicans could run Robert Downey Jr. and probably win. At least he has a personality.
Now. Let's talk about Burger King's new fries. IMO they suck worse than the old ones. if BK could ever get fries right, they'd be gold. I prefer the whopper to the Quarter Pounder most days but I don't get it because the BK fries suck so bad they ruin the entire meal.
-
Now. Let's talk about Burger King's new fries. IMO they suck worse than the old ones. if BK could ever get fries right, they'd be gold. I prefer the whopper to the Quarter Pounder most days but I don't get it because the BK fries suck so bad they ruin the entire meal.
I haven't had Burger King in months probably. Used to eat there fairly often when it was closer to the old place, but since I moved in August, I've been there maybe once or twice.
Damn it, now you've got me thinking about Burger King...
-
Fuck charts and all of this noise.
You want to fix the country?
Federal government runs the military, interstate system, and basic national needs such as national parks and disease control.
Give local governments more control, and let people be themselves. If people are going to be lazy, they don't eat. If people are going to work hard at a job that isn't relevant, they don't eat. If people understand what their local area needs and works hard at meeting those needs, they eat.
It's simple.
The Eatin' Party. Vote for me.
AWK is saying what I am trying to say. It's a fluff piece and you have to give credit to both presidents. You can't give it all to one or the other. Sorta like our shitty economy, both parties share fault in that. We spent money like we had an endless supply in 2000 until the present. The republicans had control and didn't do anything to stop it and were a part of it. In 06 when the democrats controlled congress they spent like crazy and still are to this day. I have to ask, is Obama better than Clinton, b/c he fucked up and didn't kill Bin Laden either and he had a chance?
THS: See I agree with where you are going. A lot of things need to be turned over the states and local gov't. Education being one. I do however disagree with a park being a need and the federal gov't being in control. First it's not a need. Its a want. Parks such as Joe Wheeler and Cathedral Caverns are what they need to be. State Parks. Let the state control the funding to those kind of things. If the state doesn't have the money, then the walking trail doesn't get upgraded that year and you may want to wear boots and not your Nike's.
That article was loaded with excrement and topped with turd flakes.
That's really all that needs to be said. There is no reason to have a substantive debate because there's nothing of true substance there.
I loathe the current political climate. There is no middle, only extremes. There is the freaky far left -- Obama, who is essentially a socialist in thought and deed -- and then the left leaning which includes Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and the entire bunch floated out by the Republicans. All this babble about "conservatives" and "the right" there IS no right any more. Only degrees of left.
I'm sickened by the slate of Republican candidates. Chairman Maobama is the weakest incumbent president in my memory. He's almost as vulnerable as Hoover (who I don't remember because I wasn't alive). Any legitimate Republican candidate with a smidgen of vision would trounce the stuffed shirt, do-nothing pretender. The Republicans could run Robert Downey Jr. and probably win. At least he has a personality.
Now. Let's talk about Burger King's new fries. IMO they suck worse than the old ones. if BK could ever get fries right, they'd be gold. I prefer the whopper to the Quarter Pounder most days but I don't get it because the BK fries suck so bad they ruin the entire meal.
Since Big King broke in and stole the blueprint to the McMuffin, why can't he break in again and steal the blueprint for the fries?
-
Change. Not always for the good.
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/419926_2591415513234_1490011667_32044211_149337587_n.jpg)
-
Change. Not always for the good.
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/419926_2591415513234_1490011667_32044211_149337587_n.jpg)
Where the hell could you get gas for $1.85 in November 2008, MrConservative.com?
-
Where the hell could you get gas for $1.85 in November 2008, MrConservative.com?
At the gas station.
(http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=48&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G)
Gasbuddy.com Historical tracking.
-
THS: See I agree with where you are going. A lot of things need to be turned over the states and local gov't. Education being one. I do however disagree with a park being a need and the federal gov't being in control. First it's not a need. Its a want. Parks such as Joe Wheeler and Cathedral Caverns are what they need to be. State Parks. Let the state control the funding to those kind of things. If the state doesn't have the money, then the walking trail doesn't get upgraded that year and you may want to wear boots and not your Nike's.
I included national parks because I thought some of them extend across state lines. But I agree that states could (and should) be in charge of those as well.
I've come to realize as I've gotten older that the federal government really isn't needed for my everyday activities. Just ensure that no outside force (terrorists, military, disease, etc) is going to prevent me from experiencing outside activities.
-
I included national parks because I thought some of them extend across state lines. But I agree that states could (and should) be in charge of those as well.
I've come to realize as I've gotten older that the federal government really isn't needed for my everyday activities. Just ensure that no outside force (terrorists, military, disease, etc) is going to prevent me from experiencing outside activities.
Ahh, I see now, I didn't even think about that.
The older I get the more Libertarian I become. I don't care what you do, just leave me the hell alone and don't infringe on my rights. I also see more and more that I don't think the gov't should be involved in.
-
Charts. How them shits work?
DISCLAIMER: The charts posted above aren't meant to prove or disprove any particular point. In fact, you'll notice that some of them favor Obama, while others don't. They are simply meant to show that charts will differ based upon a variety of factors, including how data is grouped, who specific data is attributed to, where the data was obtained from, etc.
Oh I agree with you VV. I was talking in particular about the surplus vs debt only. And you are right a lot of the charts are relative to what the benchmark is. I.e. on the chart that shows Obama's spending up 7.2%. A lot of his increase numbers reflect low because Bush's were already high. Again, I dont like to excuse Obama's spending problem by pointing to Bush's spending problem. They were both wrong. Bush spent too much (wars, other stupid programs). Obama is spending even more (healthcare, entitlements). I have been a big critic of Bush (Iraq, NCTB, Script Plan). And I will do the same for Obama as well.
I just think Chizad is unneccesarily getting his self wound up (and having to increase his Lipitor dose) over something so dumb as to whether Bush gave more of a crap about Bin Laden than Obama. No one will ever know. The guy is dead now. They both contributed to it. Bush did a lot of the legwork. Obama finished the job. End of story. Kudos to both.
-
Fuck charts and all of this noise.
You want to fix the country?
Federal government runs the military, interstate system, and basic national needs such as national parks and disease control.
Give local governments more control, and let people be themselves. If people are going to be lazy, they don't eat. If people are going to work hard at a job that isn't relevant, they don't eat. If people understand what their local area needs and works hard at meeting those needs, they eat.
It's simple.
The Eatin' Party. Vote for me.
I chuckled at this, but you are 100% correct. This is how our founding documents intended things to be ran.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And "welfare" does not mean THAT kind of "welfare".
-
At the gas station.
(http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=48&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G)
Gasbuddy.com Historical tracking.
Disregard the fact that it was $4.12 that same year...
-
At the gas station.
Gasbuddy.com Historical tracking.
And if you expand that out a little to include all of Bush's presidency, it looks like this.
(http://misscelebrityinmiami.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gas-chart.jpg)
It's still considerably lower than it was just prior to Obama's inauguration. If we're playing the game where gas prices are directly tied to a presidency, then if anything, Obama's mere presence in the White House magically plummeted gas prices. Apparently it was under $2 for about 6 months.
Not to digress and get caught up on the gas thing, because as I implied, who is in the White House has next to no bearing on gas prices and has far more to do with inflation, supply & demand, and OPEC controlling the price.
I included national parks because I thought some of them extend across state lines. But I agree that states could (and should) be in charge of those as well.
I've come to realize as I've gotten older that the federal government really isn't needed for my everyday activities. Just ensure that no outside force (terrorists, military, disease, etc) is going to prevent me from experiencing outside activities.
And I completely agree with that, at least theoretically.
The less government is involved in my life, the better.
As it relates to this article, however, can you name one president in US history who has practiced this model of government?
Did Reagan cut every single government program besides the military, interstate system and a few other bare necessities?
That's the point of this article, to get back on topic. People pretending that we have Karl Marx in the White House, when in reality the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is the healthcare reform plan, which as stated, is not the radical privatization of health care that people claim. The government is not taking over the health care industry. PolitiFact calls that claim the "Lie of the Year". (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/)
To summarize:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
Next to that, the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is propose "the Buffett Rule" which will only raise taxes for the richest 2% of the country. 98% of the country's taxes remain the same. I know I'm in the 98%, and I'd venture to say that probably everyone on this board is as well. If you make over a million dollars a year, then you have reason to be unhappy with this tax plan. Basically, all this is is a reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010). We're not talking the People's Republic of China here.
Aside from an economic socialist, the other thing this article is disputing is that he's some pushover pussy. Tell that to Bin Laden, Gaddafi, and Anwar al-Awlaki. He also sent Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to face a military commission. You still have a chance to ask him, although that window is quickly closing. He's anti-Israel? Tell that to the Israeli military, whom he sold 55 GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators to (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/obama-arms-israel.html) (Bunker-Busters as they're called on the skreets), and whom he stood up for at the UN when Palestine wanted their statehood (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/obama-united-nations-speech.html). I thought he was going to close Guantanamo?
This is the point of the article. That the actual reality of Obama's presidency are a far cry from the generally accepted perception. Facts be damned.
Of course, the article also goes into bashing the liberal critics for saying he's a shill for Wall Street, etc., but since that doesn't pertain to anyone here, that portion of the article was ignored.
-
I say again :facepalm:
-
Orly?
The chart claims to have a source of the Office of Management and Budget. However, the chart was actually created by Jim Hoft (http://www.captainscomments.com/comment/812), proprietor of the Gateway Pundit, a self proclaimed "major resource for right of center news (http://biggovernment.com/author/jhoft/)." Good ole Jimmy has been known to fudge charts (http://thinkingmeat.net/2008/05/14/busted-jim-hoft-posts-another-deliberately-misleading-chart) in order to imply that the political right is in the ethical right.
Oh come on... Cut the BS. Even if Hoft was ordained by Satan, the numbers align to the reported deficits year over year. You can play the transition year game between administrations, but that only goes so far. Barry along with a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate overspent every year at levels that made Bush's annual deficits attractive. Come to think of it, we're going on 1000 days of these clowns not even passing an annual budget. The House passed one last year only because the Republicans took back control, but the Senate didn't do anything with it. Neither did Barry. Nevermind the Constitutional issues with that, it's just plain irresponsible.
Cast doubt all you want. The truth is the fucking truth. Democrats will NEVER be able to honestly talk fiscal responsibility again when it comes to government. I'd like to gradulate dem for showin' theyz tru colords up in that!
-
And if you expand that out a little to include all of Bush's presidency, it looks like this.
(http://misscelebrityinmiami.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gas-chart.jpg)
It's still considerably lower than it was just prior to Obama's inauguration. If we're playing the game where gas prices are directly tied to a presidency, then if anything, Obama's mere presence in the White House magically plummeted gas prices. Apparently it was under $2 for about 6 months.
Not to digress and get caught up on the gas thing, because as I implied, who is in the White House has next to no bearing on gas prices and has far more to do with inflation, supply & demand, and OPEC controlling the price.
And I completely agree with that, at least theoretically.
The less government is involved in my life, the better.
As it relates to this article, however, can you name one president in US history who has practiced this model of government?
Did Reagan cut every single government program besides the military, interstate system and a few other bare necessities?
That's the point of this article, to get back on topic. People pretending that we have Karl Marx in the White House, when in reality the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is the healthcare reform plan, which as stated, is not the radical privatization of health care that people claim. The government is not taking over the health care industry. PolitiFact calls that claim the "Lie of the Year". (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/)
To summarize:
Next to that, the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is propose "the Buffett Rule" which will only raise taxes for the richest 2% of the country. 98% of the country's taxes remain the same. I know I'm in the 98%, and I'd venture to say that probably everyone on this board is as well. If you make over a million dollars a year, then you have reason to be unhappy with this tax plan. Basically, all this is is a reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010). We're not talking the People's Republic of China here.
Aside from an economic socialist, the other thing this article is disputing is that he's some pushover pussy. Tell that to Bin Laden, Gaddafi, and Anwar al-Awlaki. He also sent Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to face a military commission. You still have a chance to ask him, although that window is quickly closing. He's anti-Israel? Tell that to the Israeli military, whom he sold 55 GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators to (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/obama-arms-israel.html) (Bunker-Busters as they're called on the skreets), and whom he stood up for at the UN when Palestine wanted their statehood (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/obama-united-nations-speech.html). I thought he was going to close Guantanamo?
This is the point of the article. That the actual reality of Obama's presidency are a far cry from the generally accepted perception. Facts be damned.
Of course, the article also goes into bashing the liberal critics for saying he's a shill for Wall Street, etc., but since that doesn't pertain to anyone here, that portion of the article was ignored.
Before you bash Reagan, remember that he had neither the Senate or Congress on his side. Heavily democratic and hell bent on opposing him. I believe if Reagan had been President while Newt was Speaker, it would have been magic. Like I said, Clinton was smart enough to follow the GOP in 1994. I remember it well.
-
Before you bash Reagan, remember that he had neither the Senate or Congress on his side. Heavily democratic and hell bent on opposing him. I believe if Reagan had been President while Newt was Speaker, it would have been magic. Like I said, Clinton was smart enough to follow the GOP in 1994. I remember it well.
I don't see how what I said could be interpreted as bashing Reagan. If anything I used him as the gold standard for Republican purism. Insert whoever you want there. Use George Wallace or, hell, Alex P. Keaton.
The point is, yeah this fairy-tale president that disbands every government agency except the military is fun to talk about, but is that the standard of conservatism that Obama is failing to live up to? Then so has every president in the history of the United States. Ron Paul is the only legitimate candidate that I can come up with who even comes close to this ideal, and even he wouldn't make as radical a change as is being suggested.
-
Oh come on... Cut the BS.
There is no B.S. The chart indicates that the fiscal year ends September 30 (which it does for the government). Thus, money spent after October 2008 for Bush's Wall Street Bailout is attributed to Obama's 2009 tenure on that chart. How else do you explain that Bush was less than $500 billion in the hole for 2008 on this chart, yet had approved $700+ billion in spending that year?
This isn't to say that Obama hasn't done his fair share of spending; it's to point out (yet again) that charts can be misleading. Neatly categorizing spending as part of the "Bush Years," but then failing to point out that spending done in the 2009 fiscal year (October 2008 through September 2009) is attributed to Obama, is extremely misleading, especially when you put that information into a graph which makes it appear as if Obama was the one who spent the $700+ billion in 2009.
-
Next to that, the most "radical leftist" thing he's done is propose "the Buffett Rule" which will only raise taxes for the richest 2% of the country. 98% of the country's taxes remain the same. I know I'm in the 98%, and I'd venture to say that probably everyone on this board is as well. If you make over a million dollars a year, then you have reason to be unhappy with this tax plan. Basically, all this is is a reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010). We're not talking the People's Republic of China here.
I'm not one of those 2% making $1 million or more a year. But my whole problem with that bill was they wanted to keep everybody the same, except one group, and raise their taxes 4.5% because, well, they make what we consider "too much money". So, hes basically saying that Bush's tax bill was just fine; except for these people who make alot of money. Just because they make over $1 million a year doesn't mean they should magically shoulder the burden of the highest tax IMO. Especially when they more than likely aren't the ones using taxpayer programs such as food stamps, etc. Personally, I would like to see the math that was used to calculate that magic $1 million dollar dividing line.
If they were going to raise everybody's taxes, then whatever. That's one thing. But he singled out one single tax bracket and sent the message that they were going to bear the cross for the country, while leaving cuts in place for everybody else. Why should they be victims of their own success? It's sending the message that we want people to be successful. But if you're too successfull, well, you're going to get fucked.
Bottom line, I think you either raise everybody's taxes, lower everybody's taxes, or leave it the fuck alone.
-
I'm not one of those 2% making $1 million or more a year. But my whole problem with that bill was they wanted to keep everybody the same, except one group, and raise their taxes 4.5% because, well, they make what we consider "too much money". So, hes basically saying that Bush's tax bill was just fine; except for these people who make alot of money. Just because they make over $1 million a year doesn't mean they should magically shoulder the burden of the highest tax IMO. Especially when they more than likely aren't the ones using taxpayer programs such as food stamps, etc. Personally, I would like to see the math that was used to calculate that magic $1 million dollar dividing line.
If they were going to raise everybody's taxes, then whatever. That's one thing. But he singled out one single tax bracket and sent the message that they were going to bear the cross for the country, while leaving cuts in place for everybody else. Why should they be victims of their own success? It's sending the message that we want people to be successful. But if you're too successful, well, you're going to get fucked.
Bottom line, I think you either raise everybody's taxes, lower everybody's taxes, or leave it the fuck alone.
I mean, that's what tax brackets are for.
Lower taxes, in general, is better in my opinion. And I don't want to see a gross inequity in percentages (like the bottom 10% paying 1% tax, and the top 10% paying 75% or something crazy like that). But you do realize how tax brackets work, right? For example, using simplified figures as a hypothetical, if Joe the Plumber files single and makes $8,000 a year, he pays 10% of that $8,000 in taxes. If Uncle Pennybags files single and makes $1,000,000, he gets taxed 10% of the first $8,000, 15% from $8,000 to $35,000, 25% of $35k to 80k, 28% of $80k to $170k, 33% of $170k to $370k, and then 35% of the income he makes over $370k. He's not charged 35% of the full million.
And Obama didn't invent the tax bracket system.
As mentioned, as of now, he continued the Bush tax cuts, which were intended to be temporary.
I'm all for lowering taxes overall, and even evening out the brackets to be closer to a flat tax. But a pure flat tax, while I love in theory, isn't really fair in practice.
Going to a flat tax would, ironically, be considered extremely radical (to the right). Far more radical than anything Obama has actually done.
-
Tax brackets are stupid.
Paying 35% of your income is ridiculous no matter how much you make.
You should never give more to the government than you give to God. 10%. That's it.
Taxes offend my sensibilities. Taxes at that level certainly do.
Most of you don't understand who "the rich" really are.
Business owners get R.A.P.E.D. You're an LLC or a S-Corp and all the profits from the business (paper profits, BTW, not actual cash money) get pushed to the individual tax returns.
So if a business owner's "income" for IRS purposes is $800,000, for instance, the fact that he actually only pays himself $90k as an example is irrelevant. And the fact that when things are lean he pays himself last also matters not.
So at the end of the year when he's poured money into salaries, product development, equipment, benefits, building expenses, travel, entertainment, research and whatthefuckallelse, some accountant takes those numbers throws them in a jiggereydo and tells mr. businessman he "made" 800k. And that's what goes on his personal return.
VIOLA!! He's the evil rich. Even though he might have less disposable income than a guy working a factory job living alone and making 40k, he's the evil rich.
FUCK YOU, Obama. distrubute your own damn money and leave mine alone.
-
Business owners get R.A.P.E.D. You're an LLC or a S-Corp and all the profits from the business (paper profits, BTW, not actual cash money) get pushed to the individual tax returns.
So if a business owner's "income" for IRS purposes is $800,000, for instance, the fact that he actually only pays himself $90k as an example is irrelevant. And the fact that when things are lean he pays himself last also matters not.
So at the end of the year when he's poured money into salaries, product development, equipment, benefits, building expenses, travel, entertainment, research and whatthefuckallelse, some accountant takes those numbers throws them in a jiggereydo and tells mr. businessman he "made" 800k. And that's what goes on his personal return.
I see what you're trying to say, but how you said it is actually incorrect.
LLCs and S-Corporations are pass through entities. Thus, the income that the "business" earns is actually self-employment income for the individual. It's no different than getting paid to do work by yourself without a business entity.
For example, if you fixed lawnmowers on the side, didn't have an entity formed for your side business, and someone paid you $150 to replace an idler pulley, you can't tell the I.R.S. that you made $150 in income, but that you're deducting $150 in "wages" that you paid yourself. If an individual, LLC, or S-Corporation could do that, then they would have virtually no taxable income ever.
However, if an LLC or S-Corporation pays someone other than the owner(s), or in the case of an S-Corporation if the owner(s) legitimately performed the work of an employee, then you can deduct those payments as wages to employees. An owner of an LLC can never be considered an employee of the LLC, but an owner of an S-Corporation can be considered an employee of the corporation.
So, if a business owner is paying wages to employees, they can be deducted on the business's return. This reduces the amount of income that is passed through to the business owner. Just as a real life example, our business expenses (including wages) are reported on our LLC's Form 1065 as deductible business expenses. This reduces the amount of income that the firm reports earning, and thus reduces the amount of income that is distributed to each member via a K-1. If the firm earns $800,000, yet has $500,000 in business expenses, $800,000 is not reported to the owners via the K-1; rather, only $300,000 is reported to the owners via the K-1.
-
Tax brackets are stupid.
Paying 35% of your income is ridiculous no matter how much you make.
You should never give more to the government than you give to God. 10%. That's it.
Taxes offend my sensibilities. Taxes at that level certainly do.
Most of you don't understand who "the rich" really are.
Business owners get R.A.P.E.D. You're an LLC or a S-Corp and all the profits from the business (paper profits, BTW, not actual cash money) get pushed to the individual tax returns.
So if a business owner's "income" for IRS purposes is $800,000, for instance, the fact that he actually only pays himself $90k as an example is irrelevant. And the fact that when things are lean he pays himself last also matters not.
So at the end of the year when he's poured money into salaries, product development, equipment, benefits, building expenses, travel, entertainment, research and whatthefuckallelse, some accountant takes those numbers throws them in a jiggereydo and tells mr. businessman he "made" 800k. And that's what goes on his personal return.
VIOLA!! He's the evil rich. Even though he might have less disposable income than a guy working a factory job living alone and making 40k, he's the evil rich.
FUCK YOU, Obama. distrubute your own damn money and leave mine alone.
It's true, my butt gets sore...
-
I see what you're trying to say, but how you said it is actually incorrect.
LLCs and S-Corporations are pass through entities. Thus, the income that the "business" earns is actually self-employment income for the individual. It's no different than getting paid to do work by yourself without a business entity.
For example, if you fixed lawnmowers on the side, didn't have an entity formed for your side business, and someone paid you $150 to replace an idler pulley, you can't tell the I.R.S. that you made $150 in income, but that you're deducting $150 in "wages" that you paid yourself. If an individual, LLC, or S-Corporation could do that, then they would have virtually no taxable income ever.
However, if an LLC or S-Corporation pays someone other than the owner(s), or in the case of an S-Corporation if the owner(s) legitimately performed the work of an employee, then you can deduct those payments as wages to employees. An owner of an LLC can never be considered an employee of the LLC, but an owner of an S-Corporation can be considered an employee of the corporation.
So, if a business owner is paying wages to employees, they can be deducted on the business's return. This reduces the amount of income that is passed through to the business owner. Just as a real life example, our business expenses (including wages) are reported on our LLC's Form 1065 as deductible business expenses. This reduces the amount of income that the firm reports earning, and thus reduces the amount of income that is distributed to each member via a K-1. If the firm earns $800,000, yet has $500,000 in business expenses, $800,000 is not reported to the owners via the K-1; rather, only $300,000 is reported to the owners via the K-1.
Blah blah FUCKITY blah. Thanks for the lesson on how business works.
Simple fact is that "pass through" fucks you in the ass as a business owner. Even though you don't actually HAVE that money because some paper pushing accountant determines that's what the business "made" then you magically become the EVIL RICH that Obama so hates.
The point that totally missed your head is that what that paper says has no real bearing on how much disposable income you have. It may say 800k but you're living on 90.
Obama still wants all your shit. Because you're evil.
-
I mean, that's what tax brackets are for.
Lower taxes, in general, is better in my opinion. And I don't want to see a gross inequity in percentages (like the bottom 10% paying 1% tax, and the top 10% paying 75% or something crazy like that). But you do realize how tax brackets work, right? For example, using simplified figures as a hypothetical, if Joe the Plumber files single and makes $8,000 a year, he pays 10% of that $8,000 in taxes. If Uncle Pennybags files single and makes $1,000,000, he gets taxed 10% of the first $8,000, 15% from $8,000 to $35,000, 25% of $35k to 80k, 28% of $80k to $170k, 33% of $170k to $370k, and then 35% of the income he makes over $370k. He's not charged 35% of the full million.
Correct. They are marginal rates. But the top end is what we're talking about here. It doesn't change my point a bit. If he's going to raise taxes on one class, he needs to raise it on all. And I understand what tax brackets are for. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I don't agree with singling out a single specific class of taxpayers and somehow magically deciding that they just aren't pitching in enough. I mean, how did we arrive at this conclusion? What math was involved in the decision? Or are we just eyeballing it? Like I said before, lower everybody, raise everybody, or don't even fuck with it.
I'm all for lowering taxes overall, and even evening out the brackets to be closer to a flat tax. But a pure flat tax, while I love in theory, isn't really fair in practice.
So, let me get this straight. Everybody paying the same rate in taxes isn't fair. But singling out only one very specific bracket to raise taxes on is fair?
-
Correct. They are marginal rates. But the top end is what we're talking about here. It doesn't change my point a bit. If he's going to raise taxes on one class, he needs to raise it on all. And I understand what tax brackets are for. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I don't agree with singling out a single specific class of taxpayers and somehow magically deciding that they just aren't pitching in enough. I mean, how did we arrive at this conclusion? What math was involved in the decision? Or are we just eyeballing it? Like I said before, lower everybody, raise everybody, or don't even fuck with it.
So, let me get this straight. Everybody paying the same rate in taxes isn't fair. But singling out only one very specific bracket to raise taxes on is fair?
Any tax rate that is not apportioned is unconstitutional per our founding documents. Period. But......
....the smartasses decided to Add the 16th amendment.
-
Blah blah FUCKITY blah. Thanks for the lesson on how business works.
You're welcome.
Simple fact is that "pass through" fucks you in the ass as a business owner.
Sure, I agree. But it's mostly due to self-employed individuals having to pay the business's portion of employee withholding as well as the employee's portion. Your initial explanation made it sound as if self-employed individuals in an LLC or S-Corporation couldn't claim business expenses as deductions to reduce their taxable income when, in actuality, they can.
A Corporation that makes $800,000 and reports $500,000 in deductible expenses will have a taxable income of $300,000. An LLC that makes $800,000 and reports $500,000 in deductible expenses will have a taxable income of $300,000. "Paper numbers" or not, it's the same for both types of businesses.
Even though you don't actually HAVE that money because some paper pushing accountant determines that's what the business "made" then you magically become the EVIL RICH that Obama so hates.
Yeah, taxes suck. And the exorbitant amount of taxes that has to be paid sucks. But, they are business expenses. You're supposed to put aside that money for taxes so that you have it to pay in, just like you have to set aside money for overhead expenses so that you have it to pay your bills.
Again, I agree that the amount of taxes that businesses have to pay is absurd. But this whole "I don't have the money to pay it" stance is silly. If your business can't afford to pay its bills, its employees, its owner, and its taxes, then it's not a profitable business, and the owner needs to reconsider how he operates his business or whether he even should be operating the business.
Ultimately, your argument regarding high tax rates is one I agree with, but it's currently a requirement that all business owners have to deal with until revenue laws are changed. It has less to do with accountants and "paper numbers" than it does with exorbitant tax rates on taxable income.
-
You're welcome.
Sure, I agree. But it's mostly due to self-employed individuals having to pay the business's portion of employee withholding as well as the employee's portion. Your initial explanation made it sound as if self-employed individuals in an LLC or S-Corporation couldn't claim business expenses as deductions to reduce their taxable income when, in actuality, they can.
A Corporation that makes $800,000 and reports $500,000 in deductible expenses will have a taxable income of $300,000. An LLC that makes $800,000 and reports $500,000 in deductible expenses will have a taxable income of $300,000. "Paper numbers" or not, it's the same for both types of businesses.
Yeah, taxes suck. And the exorbitant amount of taxes that has to be paid sucks. But, they are business expenses. You're supposed to put aside that money for taxes so that you have it to pay in, just like you have to set aside money for overhead expenses so that you have it to pay your bills.
Again, I agree that the amount of taxes that businesses have to pay is absurd. But this whole "I don't have the money to pay it" stance is silly. If your business can't afford to pay its bills, its employees, its owner, and its taxes, then it's not a profitable business, and the owner needs to reconsider how he operates his business or whether he even should be operating the business.
Ultimately, your argument regarding high tax rates is one I agree with, but it's currently a requirement that all business owners have to deal with until revenue laws are changed. It has less to do with accountants and "paper numbers" than it does with exorbitant tax rates on taxable income.
Jesus Christo.
The point I'm making is that it's FAKE money. At the end of the year when the accountant says I "MADE" 800k and Obama singles me out as the EVIL RICH who are hogging this country's wealth when I look at my bank account I damn sure don't have 800k sitting there.
Yeah I can pay the bills. I pay my employees. I pay the benefits. I pay all the expenses. And I pay the motherfucking taxes. Tons of motherfucking taxes. Taxes are essentially my second largest "expense." The only thing I spend more on is salaries.
It pisses me off every single time that grinning motherfucker makes some allusion to the rich paying their fair share. Are you fucking SERIOUS Chairman? How much more should I pay? When he talks about raising the rates on anybody who "makes" over 250k, he's including so many small business owners who see paper profits pushed down to their personal returns. They're not rich. They're putting their lives on the line every day to keep their businesses going and trying to stay one step ahead of Obama's pack of government wolves who demonize them.
It's a sore subject with me.
if the IRS vampires would back off say..... 15%? I would hire two new employees at least one of which I would employ for the specific purpose of generating sales. if I generate more sales I can hire more people, all of whom pay taxes. And my taxes will go up due to the rise in income. Two years from now the tax base would be higher than it is now, employment would be higher than it is now and the economic recovery would be well underway.
Instead he thinks I should just pay more. Just paying more will require me to eliminate a position or two. it will keep me from pursuing additional development. It will prevent me from increasing my revenues and cause my taxes paid to shrink.
Raising taxes on the "evil rich" makes sense only to a fucking moron who's never run a business in his life. Oh wait....
-
The point I'm making is that it's FAKE money. At the end of the year when the accountant says I "MADE" 800k and Obama singles me out as the EVIL RICH who are hogging this country's wealth when I look at my bank account I damn sure don't have 800k sitting there.
Tax rates are determined by taxable income, not gross income. I would assume that political debates and decisions on tax rates would also be based on taxable income as well, no?
Thus, when they talk about how they're going to raise taxes on businesses that make $250,000 or more, they're not talking about gross income before deductible expenses, as taxes aren't calculated from "fake" gross income figures. They're talking about taxable income.
Correct? Or am I missing something?
-
Jesus Christo.
The point I'm making is that it's FAKE money. At the end of the year when the accountant says I "MADE" 800k and Obama singles me out as the EVIL RICH who are hogging this country's wealth when I look at my bank account I damn sure don't have 800k sitting there.
Yeah I can pay the bills. I pay my employees. I pay the benefits. I pay all the expenses. And I pay the motherfucking taxes. Tons of motherfucking taxes. Taxes are essentially my second largest "expense." The only thing I spend more on is salaries.
It pisses me off every single time that grinning motherfucker makes some allusion to the rich paying their fair share. Are you fucking SERIOUS Chairman? How much more should I pay? When he talks about raising the rates on anybody who "makes" over 250k, he's including so many small business owners who see paper profits pushed down to their personal returns. They're not rich. They're putting their lives on the line every day to keep their businesses going and trying to stay one step ahead of Obama's pack of government wolves who demonize them.
It's a sore subject with me.
if the IRS vampires would back off say..... 15%? I would hire two new employees at least one of which I would employ for the specific purpose of generating sales. if I generate more sales I can hire more people, all of whom pay taxes. And my taxes will go up due to the rise in income. Two years from now the tax base would be higher than it is now, employment would be higher than it is now and the economic recovery would be well underway.
Instead he thinks I should just pay more. Just paying more will require me to eliminate a position or two. it will keep me from pursuing additional development. It will prevent me from increasing my revenues and cause my taxes paid to shrink.
Raising taxes on the "evil rich" makes sense only to a fucking moron who's never run a business in his life. Oh wait....
You know you're replying to the owner of an LLC in this post, right?
Also, show me a link where Obama used the term "evil rich" you keep putting in quotations. Sounds like you're getting overly defensive.
And Obama invented taxes? Or even raised income taxes once? He has recently proposed a tax plan that doesn't affect me or anyone I know. Like, VandyVol, I can agree that the way businesses are taxed is somewhat unfair, but A) it's not as bad as you're painting it, and B) Obama didn't invent the tax structure.
Again, you're pointing your finger to Obama like he has done something insanely radical with the tax structure. Like taxes were his idea. This is exactly the kind of thing the article in the original post is about.
-
Tax rates are determined by taxable income, not gross income. I would assume that political debates and decisions on tax rates would also be based on taxable income as well, no?
Thus, when they talk about how they're going to raise taxes on businesses that make $250,000 or more, they're not talking about gross income before deductible expenses, as taxes aren't calculated from "fake" gross income figures. They're talking about taxable income.
Correct? Or am I missing something?
I've been running my own business for 11 years. I know the difference between gross and taxable.
The point I am trying to make is that the taxable income the accountants come up with has no actual relational bearing to the amount of cash you may or may not have on hand.
It's not as simple as "income minus expenses" because not all expenses can be deducted. Only portions of others can.
Ask a regular employee what they "make" and they can tell you their gross salary and their take home pay.
Ask a business owner what they "make" and they can tell you what they take home and then have to get some other arbitrary (and yes, I know how it's calculated) other number from their accountant. That number bears no resemblance to either number their employee can recite.
And when Obama singles out the "evil rich" he's talking about all of us who have a business and bring over $250K in "fake" money that is calculated by accountants. He says it as if we "MAKE" $250k.
But the reality is that we don't. I know a lot of business owners. Guys who show hundreds of thousands on their K1. But is that reality? Can they spend that money? Is it theirs? Not if they want the business to continue. Not if they don't want to go to jail. But they're all considered the evil rich by Obama and his class warfare stormtroopers.
Simple point and I'm done. If I actually had the money that my last five K1's showed? TJ Yeldon would still be coming to Auburn.
As for Chizad... I was referring to Obama as never having run a business in his life. He hasn't.
It's exactly as bad as I'm painting it. I write the fucking checks every quarter. I know what it looks like. I know what it looks like down to the nickel. My painting is Norman Rockwell clear.
I never said that The Chairman invented tax or made it what it is today. Yeah, I object to where we are. Don't blame him for that. What I object to more is the characterization of "the rich" and the constant demands from Obama that "the rich" pay more than we're already paying. How many different ways does he have to say it? It's the cornerstone of his entire agenda. Take from those who do, give to those who don't. When you're taking 1/3 of what I make? That's by damn enough. Don't fucking ask for more.
-
The point I am trying to make is that the taxable income the accountants come up with has no actual relational bearing to the amount of cash you may or may not have on hand.
It's not as simple as "income minus expenses" because not all expenses can be deducted. Only portions of others can.
The vast majority are deductible, but yes, there are those that aren't. Of those non-deductible expenses, though, how many are ultimately covered by your personal standard deduction of $5,700?
The only partially deductible expenses that I can think of are gifts and meals. Technically, home office and vehicle expenses are considered partially deductible expenses, but that's because one has to typically separate your personal usage from your business usage of vehicles and the home. Technically, 100% of the business portion of those expenses are deductible.
And as far as non-deductible business expenses? Again, the only ones I can think of are penalties/fines, donations to political parties/lobbying expenses, social club dues, and bribes. Hell, even a BBB membership is deductible.
Just out of curiosity, what else are you not able to deduct?
-
And when Obama singles out the "evil rich" he's talking about all of us who have a business and bring over $250K in "fake" money that is calculated by accountants. He says it as if we "MAKE" $250k.
Simple minded people don't get this. They all think you are the rich bastard that got lucky and made "ALL THAT MONEY" when you don't really make as much as most.
And then other dumbasses try to explain it away.
Your statement about hiring more people is exactly why the "RICH" business owners should pay LESS taxes.
But alas, these little bastards that didn't get out of college making 200k are all pissed off about those of us who worked our way up.
Bottom line is, you tax the rich, you take away jobs.
-
The vast majority are deductible, but yes, there are those that aren't. Of those non-deductible expenses, though, how many are ultimately covered by your personal standard deduction of $5,700?
The only partially deductible expenses that I can think of are gifts and meals. Technically, home office and vehicle expenses are considered partially deductible expenses, but that's because one has to typically separate your personal usage from your business usage of vehicles and the home. Technically, 100% of the business portion of those expenses are deductible.
And as far as non-deductible business expenses? Again, the only ones I can think of are penalties/fines, donations to political parties/lobbying expenses, social club dues, and bribes. Hell, even a BBB membership is deductible.
Just out of curiosity, what else are you not able to deduct?
$5700? Are you shitting me?
That doesn't cover a month.
I'm not going to go through my tax returns line by line.
I'll try to make this as simple as I possibly can. Suppose I get my K1 and after expenses and deductions it shows I "made" $XXX,XXX last year. That is a fake number. Because things are rolling from one year to the next, credits from this apply to that, etc. It's not nearly as simple as you're trying to make it in my case. It's not a matter of cash in minus cash out and bizzam! there's your profit. If it was that easy I wouldn't have to pay accountants fucktons of money to sort it out.
You can take that $XXX,XXX number the accountant provides, that number that is the taxable business income that slides onto my personal tax return and puts a target on my back for the Obama hounds and then look at my monthly bank statements. At no time during the year do I have $XXX,XXX in the bank.
But the perception people have when they hear that smug bastard talk about the "rich" needing to pay more is that people actually have "all that money" at their disposal. They think that at the end of every year that $XXX,XXX number is what we put in our pockets. It's not even close.
My employees are the same. It's why I don't let them see the business returns.
-
Simple minded people don't get this. They all think you are the rich bastard that got lucky and made "ALL THAT MONEY" when you don't really make as much as most.
And then other dumbasses try to explain it away.
Your statement about hiring more people is exactly why the "RICH" business owners should pay LESS taxes.
But alas, these little bastards that didn't get out of college making 200k are all pissed off about those of us who worked our way up.
Bottom line is, you tax the rich, you take away jobs.
At least somebody gets it.
-
Bottom line is, you tax the rich, you take away jobs.
when it comes down to brass tax (no pun intended) I agree with this statement.
-
$5700? Are you shitting me?
That doesn't cover a month.
Total expenses, no, it wouldn't. I'm talking about non-deductible or partially deductible expenses only. There just aren't that many of them, so I'm trying to figure out what exactly it is that you're stating can't be deducted that's making such a big difference in your reported income after expenses and your actual income after expenses.
Virtually every business expense is deductible. There was less than $200 that we were unable to claim this year, and that was due to only being able to deduct 50% of business meals with clients or other professionals.
I'm not calling you a liar or trying to poke holes in your posts; I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you are not able to claim, because the I.R.C. doesn't make very many business expenses non-deductible.
-
Total expenses, no, it wouldn't. I'm talking about non-deductible or partially deductible expenses only. There just aren't that many of them, so I'm trying to figure out what exactly it is that you're stating can't be deducted that's making such a big difference in your reported income after expenses and your actual income after expenses.
Virtually every business expense is deductible. There was less than $200 that we were unable to claim this year, and that was due to only being able to deduct 50% of business meals with clients or other professionals.
I'm not calling you a liar or trying to poke holes in your posts; I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you are not able to claim, because the I.R.C. doesn't make very many business expenses non-deductible.
You can have that discussion with my accountant. I'm not a two or three man shop. Lots of employees, multiple locations and all kinds of shit. My situation isn't unusual. When I go to conferences or meetings I hear business owners from all walks of life making similar complaints.
Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?
-
You can have that discussion with my accountant. I'm not a two or three man shop. Lots of employees, multiple locations and all kinds of shit. My situation isn't unusual. When I go to conferences or meetings I hear business owners from all walks of life making similar complaints.
Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?
See, you think big picture and see where all this is heading. Which is the right way to look at all of this. I don't like the direction this is heading. All of the small details, tax credits, rhetoric from Obama - all red herrings. He has a general policy of wealth redistribution and hating on those who make money. Social engineering is his philosophy. This is 100% Alinsky material. If the people get bogged down too much in ground level and campaign rhetoric, they will miss the big idea. I think that is happening.
And Chad keeps making Blood Pressure med makers richer. I guess that means they need to get taxed more.
-
Correct. They are marginal rates. But the top end is what we're talking about here. It doesn't change my point a bit. If he's going to raise taxes on one class, he needs to raise it on all. And I understand what tax brackets are for. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I don't agree with singling out a single specific class of taxpayers and somehow magically deciding that they just aren't pitching in enough. I mean, how did we arrive at this conclusion? What math was involved in the decision? Or are we just eyeballing it? Like I said before, lower everybody, raise everybody, or don't even fuck with it.
So, let me get this straight. Everybody paying the same rate in taxes isn't fair. But singling out only one very specific bracket to raise taxes on is fair?
I want to get back at something said here about the flat tax and tax rates. The goat fucker brings up a good point here. Is everyone paying the same rate fair? No, it's close, but not honestly fair. Is what we have now fair? Nope, no where close.
What we need is a consumption tax. Give me 100% of my salary set a sales tax and be done with it. For everyone. Those who make more will consume more, those who make less will consume less. It also covers any illegals who are here and it might help curb them coming here. You also get those who make their money illegally in the underground/black market economy. You know a drug dealer doesn't report taxes, but he damn sure buys a car, rims for that car, food, hygiene products. At least we would be getting that.
-
I want to get back at something said here about the flat tax and tax rates. The goat fucker brings up a good point here. Is everyone paying the same rate fair? No, it's close, but not honestly fair. Is what we have now fair? Nope, no where close.
What we need is a consumption tax. Give me 100% of my salary set a sales tax and be done with it. For everyone. Those who make more will consume more, those who make less will consume less. It also covers any illegals who are here and it might help curb them coming here. You also get those who make their money illegally in the underground/black market economy. You know a drug dealer doesn't report taxes, but he damn sure buys a car, rims for that car, food, hygiene products. At least we would be getting that.
Agree.
-
Agree.
See you say something like that and I think there is hope for you yet.
Just let go of those liberal tendencies you have Chizad and embrace the power of the dark side! You do that and you would almost be the perfect Libertarian.
-
Agree.
Thirded.
-
It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning. I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise. I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.
-
It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning. I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise. I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.
A for effort. I managed to give a Grinch type smile.
-
It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning. I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise. I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.
I don't have a Mercedes. Obama says I can have yours so things will be "fair".
What time do you want me to come by to pick it up?
-
There is no B.S. The chart indicates that the fiscal year ends September 30 (which it does for the government). Thus, money spent after October 2008 for Bush's Wall Street Bailout is attributed to Obama's 2009 tenure on that chart. How else do you explain that Bush was less than $500 billion in the hole for 2008 on this chart, yet had approved $700+ billion in spending that year?
Again, you've focused on the transition year, that first year of a new administration that should be following a budget that was passed by an exiting administration. This would suggest that Obama was merely executing George Bush's budget for 2009. Nevermind the fact that Democrats controlled the House and Senate at the time the budget was passed... Nevermind the fact that the House and Senate were still controlled by Democrats when Obama took office... Nevermind the additional spending bills were signed by Obama after Bush left office for the 2009 spending year... Nevermind that the physical spending in 2009 was executed under Obama's leadership.
This isn't to say that Obama hasn't done his fair share of spending; it's to point out (yet again) that charts can be misleading. Neatly categorizing spending as part of the "Bush Years," but then failing to point out that spending done in the 2009 fiscal year (October 2008 through September 2009) is attributed to Obama, is extremely misleading, especially when you put that information into a graph which makes it appear as if Obama was the one who spent the $700+ billion in 2009.
This is only partially true. While a new Prez inherits the budget of the departing administration, that does not mean that the new administration cannot work with Congress to modify the spending plan for that first year in office. By executing to the budget passed by the previous administration, the new administration is effectively accepting the spending plan. For these reasons, the new administration typically takes responsibility over the spending during that transition year. As we know, Barry went on to spend even more during the 2009 fiscal year.
-
I don't have a Mercedes. Obama says I can have yours so things will be "fair".
What time do you want me to come by to pick it up?
I guess that would be okay. Really, the only one who drives it is my son when he gets tired of the Ferrari 458...and how often does that happen, huh?
-
See you say something like that and I think there is hope for you yet.
Just let go of those liberal tendencies you have Chizad and embrace the power of the dark side! You do that and you would almost be the perfect Libertarian.
But, he'll still find young boys in dressed in choir uniforms sexy...
-
But, he'll still find young boys in dressed in choir uniforms sexy...
Chizad is Sandusky?
-
You can have that discussion with my accountant. I'm not a two or three man shop. Lots of employees, multiple locations and all kinds of shit.
That shouldn't matter. There's not a limitation on the amount of employee wages you can deduct, or a limit on the amount of rent for locations you can deduct, etc. The more expenses you have, the more you can deduct.
Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?
Yes sir (http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html).
It's normally considered a capital expense, but for several years now there have been two exceptions which allow you to deduct the entire cost of a capital expense in one year (up to a certain amount, and $50,000 is way under that amount), as opposed to spreading it out over several years like you normally would treat a capital expense.
For those capital expenses which are too large for these exceptions, you still get to deduct the entire expense; it's just spread out over several years to represent the useful life of the asset. Thus, you'll be able to include deductions for expenses in subsequent years when, in reality, you had no such expenses for those years. "Fake numbers" sometimes work in your favor, even if it takes more than one year to realize the deduction.
-
Again, you've focused on the transition year, that first year of a new administration that should be following a budget that was passed by an exiting administration.
No, not really. The bailout was passed on October 3, 2008. Money was spent in October, November, and December of 2008, before Obama took office. I can't find exact figures, but at least $150 billion was spent from what I can find. More than that may have been spent, and must be taken into consideration because Obama was not even President at that time, yet the chart reflects that those expenses were his.
Sure, Obama continued the bailout after 2009, and amounts were paid in 2009. But it was the previous President who signed it into law. Once it's a law, it has to be followed until Congress repeals/alters it or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional; a President can't veto existing legislation.
Granted, Obama extended bailouts to new entities other than banks after the Wall Street bailout, and didn't fight too hard to try to end the Wall Street bailouts. But contributing the entirety of that debt from a law enacted in 2008, and especially for amounts spent in 2008, is misleading.
There is a huge increase from 2008 to 2009, and from then on out, there isn't as large of an increase. So for that "transitional year," it's very important to differentiate between who actually spent what if one is going to argue that Obama or Bush is solely responsibly for driving us X% further into a deficit. The chart referenced fails to make that differentiation, as it blindly attributes expenditures according to the fiscal year, not the political term.
-
That shouldn't matter. There's not a limitation on the amount of employee wages you can deduct, or a limit on the amount of rent for locations you can deduct, etc. The more expenses you have, the more you can deduct.
Yes sir (http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html).
It's normally considered a capital expense, but for several years now there have been two exceptions which allow you to deduct the entire cost of a capital expense in one year (up to a certain amount, and $50,000 is way under that amount), as opposed to spreading it out over several years like you normally would treat a capital expense.
For those capital expenses which are too large for these exceptions, you still get to deduct the entire expense; it's just spread out over several years to represent the useful life of the asset. Thus, you'll be able to include deductions for expenses in subsequent years when, in reality, you had no such expenses for those years. "Fake numbers" sometimes work in your favor, even if it takes more than one year to realize the deduction.
I'm sorry but you combine verbosity with cluelessness in a manner greater than I've ever seen.
The fact that you honestly think you can simply take "cash in minus cash out" with a tweak here or there and come up with how much I "made" in the business is astounding.
I'm not going to bore you with the details because you already know everything but I feel as if I spend half my fucking life going over this shit with my accountant and your simplistic examples are worthless and insulting.
Been doing this about half of the time you've been on this earth. If you count the time when I owned furniture stores I've probably done it for more than half your life. I've bounced between cash and accrual methods trying to find the right fit. I've paid people to scour the statutes to find ways to beat back the baying government hounds who think they deserve to rape half what I make (republican and democrat). I have my books done by two different sets of accounting firms to make sure neither misses something. I have a third go through them when he does my personal returns. I don't leave stones unturned.
And I'm telling you that no matter how much you babble about this, that and the other, at the end of the fucking day when they hand me that sheet of paper, when we go through each line there's no real relational value between the money they say the companies "made" and the actual cash flow.
I'm talking about PERCEPTION.
When Obama says he's looking at people who "make" more than 250k he's talking about people like me. My business may show 250k. People hear that number and assume I'm taking that much out. They figure I fill my gold plated swimming pool with dollar bills and swim in it. But that number is NOT the motherfucking reality. They may say I "made" $250k, but the reality is that the money is already tagged. It's gone into development. It's paid for that $50,000 server that I don't get to deduct except for a piece at a time. It's paid salaries and benefits. It's gone into research. It disappeared up a lobbyist's ass. Portions of that can be flagged in some future tax year or whatever, but I'm talking PERCEPTION.
In the year they said I "made" say $600K do you really, honestly think that when I got to the end of the year that's how much I had sitting there to spend?
Only Obama is that fucking dumb.
It would have been a hell of a New Year's party. All I got to say.
The rich? Anybody who shows more than 250k on a return is the rich and needs to give more? Bullshit. Fucking bullshit.
-
I'm sorry but you combine verbosity with cluelessness in a manner greater than I've ever seen.
So sorry. Here, let's make it simple so that you don't have to read more than three sentences:
Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?
Yes. Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation. If your accountant hasn't heard of these and still claims that you can't deduct the entirety of $50,000 in capital expenses in the year that you spent it, then get a new accountant.
Been doing this about half of the time you've been on this earth.
I've been running my own business for 11 years.
Mathematics fail; 11 years is not half of my life. I see now why you blindly accept what accountants tell you.
I've paid people to scour the statutes to find ways to beat back the baying government hounds who think they deserve to rape half what I make (republican and democrat). I have my books done by two different sets of accounting firms to make sure neither misses something. I have a third go through them when he does my personal returns. I don't leave stones unturned.
If the people you pay are telling you that you can't deduct the expense of a $50,000 server on your return, then they're leaving stones unturned and you need to find new accountants. Don't take my word for it; read the link I posted.
Your accountants are apparently not keeping up to date with changes in the law, and they are apparently telling you that you still have to amortize every capital expense over several years, which is no longer true. It doesn't really matter whether you asked two accountants or fifty-two; the laws have changed whether your harem of accountants know it or not.
-
I know one thing. Neither of you have made much money today.
So why dont you two go fuck and get it over with? Kaos can be the giver and VV can be the reciever since thats what he is used to anyway. Not disappoint you VV, but Ive heard Kaos has a small cock. The good news is, he'll dress up like a cat if that helps you climax any faster.
-
No, not really. The bailout was passed on October 3, 2008. Money was spent in October, November, and December of 2008, before Obama took office. I can't find exact figures, but at least $150 billion was spent from what I can find. More than that may have been spent, and must be taken into consideration because Obama was not even President at that time, yet the chart reflects that those expenses were his.
You're splitting hairs... We hated Bush's overspending. Don't put me in a position to defend it. Yes, there was a three and a half month period where the increased spending passed under the 2009 budget was executed under Bush. However, after Bush, Obama directed and redirected those remaining funds to some of his pet spending projects (who got how much, etc.) under the guise of TARP, and he went further passing additional spending bills during and for the 2009 fiscal year.
Sure, Obama continued the bailout after 2009, and amounts were paid in 2009. But it was the previous President who signed it into law. Once it's a law, it has to be followed until Congress repeals/alters it or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional; a President can't veto existing legislation.
No shit... Focusing only on fiscal 2009, he also took responsibility over how that money was spent and even authorized additional spending above that amount during that year. Congress didn't need to repeal or alter it. They just gave him more to blow through.
Granted, Obama extended bailouts to new entities other than banks after the Wall Street bailout, and didn't fight too hard to try to end the Wall Street bailouts. But contributing the entirety of that debt from a law enacted in 2008, and especially for amounts spent in 2008, is misleading.
The new Prez can and has historically worked with Congress to adjust spending levels and reallocate funds through new legislation even after a budget has been passed. Obama spent the money. He decided where and what allocation of it to spend under the scope of the spending legislation, and he went back to Congress to get more, all for fiscal year 2009. I haven't even addressed the overspending after 2009 where they did not pass any budgets as required under the Constitution.
There is a huge increase from 2008 to 2009, and from then on out, there isn't as large of an increase. So for that "transitional year," it's very important to differentiate between who actually spent what if one is going to argue that Obama or Bush is solely responsibly for driving us X% further into a deficit. The chart referenced fails to make that differentiation, as it blindly attributes expenditures according to the fiscal year, not the political term.
The transition year argument is a farce. This is a ridiculous assertion unless you can somehow show that Bush spent the majority of that $787B TARP and/or a significant portion of the other spending allocations during that initial three and a half month period. We know that he did not, and many of the funds were distributed per Obama's direction. The vast majority of the funds for fiscal year 2009 were spent while Obama was Prez. and he went back for more all during 2009. I'm not even talking about TARP 2.0 or other shit-spending programs. He went on to continue this horrendous level of overspending throughout 2010 and 2011, and he's doing it again for 2012. You might have something here if Obama's spending levels dropped below an $800B deficit for 2011, but we know that's not going to happen.
-
I know one thing. Neither of you have made much money today.
So why dont you two go fuck and get it over with? Kaos can be the giver and VV can be the reciever since thats what he is used to anyway. Not disappoint you VV, but Ive heard Kaos has a small cock. The good news is, he'll dress up like a cat if that helps you climax any faster.
Both parties in this conversation are business owners. Only one is a tax attorney.
-
So sorry. Here, let's make it simple so that you don't have to read more than three sentences:
Yes. Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation. If your accountant hasn't heard of these and still claims that you can't deduct the entirety of $50,000 in capital expenses in the year that you spent it, then get a new accountant.
Mathematics fail; 11 years is not half of my life. I see now why you blindly accept what accountants tell you.
If the people you pay are telling you that you can't deduct the expense of a $50,000 server on your return, then they're leaving stones unturned and you need to find new accountants. Don't take my word for it; read the link I posted.
Your accountants are apparently not keeping up to date with changes in the law, and they are apparently telling you that you still have to amortize every capital expense over several years, which is no longer true. It doesn't really matter whether you asked two accountants or fifty-two; the laws have changed whether your harem of accountants know it or not.
11 years in this business. Twice that is 22. You're not over 30. Add in the four years I owned a furniture store (and discount the time I spent managing expansion for a national chain) and you're up to 15. Twice that is 30. You're not over 30.
And you're taking a random (not real) example and trying to pin your entire hopes on that one argument. I don't know how much servers cost. I have people who spec them out and have a budget. If they spend all the budget on one, that's their deal. I don't know. I do know that when we look at the taxes I've got equipment from three or four years ago still on there and they all dwindle down at varying rates depending on what rule was in place at the time of purchase. And I don't get to take full credit for the one I bought this year.
So let me make this simple for you, okay?
Let's say I bought $200,000 worth of equipment. Had to. No choice. Had to keep things going. I don't know off the top of my head what the schedule is so let's say I can only count 25% of the cost for THIS year's taxes. That's $50,000.
Now let's assume my business had gross receipts of $500,000. And I spend $150,000 on salaries and benefits. Another $50,000 on rent, travel, etc.
** Note: These are not real figures so quit hanging your pointed hat on them **
For tax purposes:
$500,000
- 150,000
- 50,000
- 50,000
____________
Profit: $250,000. Oh SHIT!! It's the rich. Let's tax the fuck out of this guy!!!
Reality:
$500,000
- 150,000
- 50,000
- 200,000
__________
Profit: $100,000
That's what goes to the tax return. Now consider for the moment that in that total I have yet to pay myself a dime.
From Obama's perspective I "made" 250k and am a rich bastard who needs to be held upside down and have my pockets turned out. In the reality of managing the business, however, my accessible cash is less than half what the Chairman sees.
I realize that over a period of years I can keep knocking down the taxes by using dwindling portions of the equipment purchase. I also realize that in subsequent tax years the same kind of thing will keep happening. There will be shit to buy, things to do. Blah, blah, blah, flippity fucking blah. Please for the love of God quit trying to impress me with your whippersnapper knowledge of the tax code. I could give a fuck.
So I guess you can tell me that it will all even out one day. Really? Maybe if I sell it. But no, they'll want to zap the SHIT out of any proceeds I might get from the sale. So maybe if i retire. Or maybe they just keep taxing us "rich" folks until we give up and do something else.
And for the record? What I do no longer has much impact on what I make on a day to day basis. It's sad actually. I kill bears. I look for new places to hunt. I think of ways to do things differently.
Right now I've gunned down a nice bear and am in the process of skinning it and apportioning the pieces for others to use to make me more.
-
Obama overspent. Bush overspent. I think we both agree on that. I'm not defending Obama here; I'm just pointing out that charts can be misleading, and that if we really want to look at the numbers and quantify blame, we should at least do so accurately.
The transition year argument is a farce. This is a ridiculous assertion unless you can somehow show that Bush spent the majority of that $787B TARP and/or a significant portion of the other spending allocations during that initial three and a half month period. We know that he did not, and many of the funds were distributed per Obama's direction.
One would logically think that this much money could not be distributed within a three month period, but headlines suggest otherwise (some of this is part of the bailout, and some of it is not, by the way):
October 6, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-6fed.16724041.html): Federal Reserve doubles its auctions of cash to banks to as much as $900 billion
October 14, 2008 (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2008/10/14/the-700-billion-bailout-plan-take-two): Government decides to buy up to $250 billion of nonvoting, senior-preferred shares in U.S. banks.
October 21, 2008 (http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/10/21/fed-loans-540-billion-to-bail-out-money-market-funds.htm): Federal Reserve loans $540 billion to bail out banks.
November 25, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?pagewanted=all): Federal Reserve and Treasury create new lending program consisting of $800 billion. This article goes on to indicate that, of $7.8 trillion in obligations taken on thus far in 2008, about $1.4 trillion of that has "been committed to loans, capital infusions to banks and the rescues of firms."
Regardless of the amount spent or not spent in 2008, my only point is that a fairly significant amount of money was spent in 2008 under Bush's administration, and thus a chart needs to reflect what was spent by Bush's administration and what was spent by Obama's administration; it shouldn't rely upon the fiscal year, which does not reflect spending accurately.
But yes, Obama's a moron. We can all agree on that.
-
And you're taking a random (not real) example and trying to pin your entire hopes on that one argument. I don't know how much servers cost. I have people who spec them out and have a budget. If they spend all the budget on one, that's their deal. I don't know. I do know that when we look at the taxes I've got equipment from three or four years ago still on there and they all dwindle down at varying rates depending on what rule was in place at the time of purchase. And I don't get to take full credit for the one I bought this year.
So let me make this simple for you, okay?
Let's say I bought $200,000 worth of equipment. Had to. No choice. Had to keep things going. I don't know off the top of my head what the schedule is so let's say I can only count 25% of the cost for THIS year's taxes. That's $50,000.
:facepalm:
I guess you still didn't bother to read the link on Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation, did you?
I'll try to sum it up in as few words as possible so that you won't have to decipher my babbling cluelessness.
2011. Section 179 allows for an exception for capital expenses up to $500,000. It allows you to claim the entirety of a capital expense as a deduction, up to $500,000, in the year you spent the money.
If your returns indicate that you're deducting this over five years, then your accountants haven't been keeping up with changes in the law. Either that, or you haven't indicated to them that amortizing it bothers you, and thus they haven't changed the way that they report it.
Spend $200,000 on a capital expense in the form of a server? Deduct $200,000 on a capital expense in the form of a server. In one year, not five.
Spend $500,000? Deduct $500,000. In one year, not five.
Right now I've gunned down a nice bear and am in the process of skinning it and apportioning the pieces for others to use to make me more.
Can we have sex on it later?
-
:facepalm: :facepalm:
And now you know why people hate lawyers. Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.
Server was an example. Doesn't have to be a server. Maybe it was a car. Maybe it was a whore for a politician.
Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote. Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand. Period.
-
:facepalm: :facepalm:
And now you know why people hate lawyers. Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.
Server was an example. Doesn't have to be a server. Maybe it was a car. Maybe it was a whore for a politician.
Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote. Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand. Period.
What have I ever done to you? I've always been straight with you. Well okay.....except for that one night in Austin. But he said Emu cream would clear it up in a week. How was I to know it would raise up and turn blue like that?
-
:facepalm: :facepalm:
And now you know why people hate lawyers. Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.
Server was an example. Doesn't have to be a server. Maybe it was a car. Maybe it was a whore for a politician.
Dude...a car is also a capital expense. I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server. I'm not just explaining how to treat a car. I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.
Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses. Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions), that would normally be amortized over several years.
Thus, when you keep talking about how your capital expense (whatever type of purchase that may be) of $200,000 would have to be amortized over five years, you're showing that you don't understand Section 179's $500,000 deduction limit for capital expenses.
If people don't like attorneys because they attempt to explain something that people don't appear to understand, then that's tough shit on their part. I guess they can keep working with accountants who don't know what the hell they're doing, and can continue getting raped in the ass year after year because they didn't keep up with the tax code changes enacted by the Tax Relief Act.
Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote. Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand. Period.
Never said it did. I'm simply saying that there are statutes out there which make it a lot closer than what your examples suggest.
But who cares about laws anyhow, right? It's not like they have any bearing on how tax deductions are handled. Your accountants supersede all laws; if they file your taxes in a specific manner, then there is no other way.
-
2011. Section 179 allows for an exception for capital expenses up to $500,000. It allows you to claim the entirety of a capital expense as a deduction, up to $500,000, in the year you spent the money.
So what you're saying is that under OBAMA, as part of his evil stimulus plan, he actually took the tax burden Kaos is blaming him for, and eliminated it?
What a monster.
Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses.
I'm not so sure about this. Do hookers file taxes?
-
Here is some shit that makes me angry:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/01/obama_targets_skyrocketing_col.html (http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/01/obama_targets_skyrocketing_col.html)
Obama wants to cut some funding to colleges who raise tuition to what he deems as unaffordable for too many families. He wants to keep money going to those colleges who "spend responsibly", and keep the poorer kids in school. What this will lead to is colleges lowering standards, and that is bullshit. It has already happened in the public school system. Alot of colleges are raising tuition because some states have cut their funding, because we're in a recession. The states realize there is less money coming in, so less money should be spent. Colleges receive less money. It has to be passed on somewhere, or those colleges may cease to operate. The logic used is crazy.
-
Obama overspent. Bush overspent. I think we both agree on that. I'm not defending Obama here; I'm just pointing out that charts can be misleading, and that if we really want to look at the numbers and quantify blame, we should at least do so accurately.
Misleading... Well, Democrats certainly didn't have a problem using and passing around simplistic charts like this and the one below to show Republican overspending during the 2008 campaign. Of course, they also forgot to identify who controlled the House and Senate during those times.
(http://unastronaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/120m4471.jpg?w=500&h=400)
As I said, if you can show where Bush spent a significant amount of that money during his last three and a half months, you might have something there, but you can't. The chart was a good summary of the deficits year over year, and it clearly showed that Obama's overspending is approximately three times that of Bush, even if you'd like to argue the first three and a half months of the 2009 fiscal year.
One would logically think that this much money could not be distributed within a three month period, but headlines suggest otherwise (some of this is part of the bailout, and some of it is not, by the way):
October 6, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-6fed.16724041.html): Federal Reserve doubles its auctions of cash to banks to as much as $900 billion
October 14, 2008 (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2008/10/14/the-700-billion-bailout-plan-take-two): Government decides to buy up to $250 billion of nonvoting, senior-preferred shares in U.S. banks.
October 21, 2008 (http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/10/21/fed-loans-540-billion-to-bail-out-money-market-funds.htm): Federal Reserve loans $540 billion to bail out banks.
November 25, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?pagewanted=all): Federal Reserve and Treasury create new lending program consisting of $800 billion. This article goes on to indicate that, of $7.8 trillion in obligations taken on thus far in 2008, about $1.4 trillion of that has "been committed to loans, capital infusions to banks and the rescues of firms."
I'm sorry, but the math doesn't add up here as the tally would have exceeded that authorized under TARP, the 2009 budget or any other legislation at the time. Nevertheless, many of the final decisions as to who received much of this money did not occur until Obama took office.
Regardless of the amount spent or not spent in 2008, my only point is that a fairly significant amount of money was spent in 2008 under Bush's administration, and thus a chart needs to reflect what was spent by Bush's administration and what was spent by Obama's administration; it shouldn't rely upon the fiscal year, which does not reflect spending accurately.
The chart does reflect overspending accurately over time, and we know who was in control of the House, Senate and White House throughout most of that time.
But yes, Obama's a moron. We can all agree on that.
At least we found one thing to agree on...
-
Dude...a car is also a capital expense. I don't think this is getting through to you...
Here's what I don't think is getting through to you.
I write the motherfucking checks every motherfucking quarter. I know what I pay. I know what my K1 says every single year. I know what available cash I have month to month. I know what I spend. I know what I take in.
I spend a fuckton of money on accountants and lawyers.
But you clearly know more about the situations I've been dealing with for the last 11 years than i do, than the people I pay to know about it do, than the lawyers I pay to monitor things do.
If it were as GODDAM simple as you make it out to be "cash in - cash out = available cash" then there would be no need for accountants and no need for tax lawyers.
Say whatever else you want from here on out. I could give a fuck.
-
Misleading... Well, Democrats certainly didn't have a problem using and passing around simplistic charts like this and the one below to show Republican overspending during the 2008 campaign. Of course, they also forgot to identify who controlled the House and Senate during those times.
Of course they didn't. I'm not saying this is either a Republican thing or a Democrat thing; just saying that charts can be created so as to present numbers in a misleading, or even downright false, manner.
I'm sorry, but the math doesn't add up here as the tally would have exceeded that authorized under TARP, the 2009 budget or any other legislation at the time.
Yeah, like I said, some of those were not Wall Street bailouts. In fact, I think one of the articles said that the $800 billion was a "new" program started in November, which suggests it wasn't part of the TARP deal.
Also, TARP actually had a range of $700 billion to (I believe) $1.5 trillion; don't quote me on that, I can't recall. $700 billion was just the bare minimum that they indicated they'd need to spend. Plus, various additional costs were approved by both Bush and Obama as things moved forward, so it's not going to add up to the initially estimated $700 billion.
-
Dude...a car is also a capital expense. I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server. I'm not just explaining how to treat a car. I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.
Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses. Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions), that would normally be amortized over several years.
Thus, when you keep talking about how your capital expense (whatever type of purchase that may be) of $200,000 would have to be amortized over five years, you're showing that you don't understand Section 179's $500,000 deduction limit for capital expenses.
There are actually quite a few limitations when you dig into this... For instance, assuming I'm reading the correct version, the first year deduction limitation for passenger cars or trucks that have been purchased in 2011 is only around $11k. You cannot deduct the entire amount during the first year.
If people don't like attorneys because they attempt to explain something that people don't appear to understand, then that's tough shit on their part. I guess they can keep working with accountants who don't know what the hell they're doing, and can continue getting raped in the ass year after year because they didn't keep up with the tax code changes enacted by the Tax Relief Act.
You guys are talking on different planes. I see both sides to this and understand the frustration Kaos is talking about. Yes, Section 179 offers you some relief, but there are limitations as I identified above. The problem here is that most in the government don't understand business, the free market, an operating budget or the difference between profit and income. It's not as simple as you seem to believe especially when you're dealing with a 50 page federal tax return along with multiple states.
-
I write the motherfucking checks every motherfucking quarter. I know what I pay. I know what my K1 says every single year. I know what available cash I have month to month. I know what I spend. I know what I take in.
Congratulations. None of those activities have anything to do with Section 179 and how capital expenses can be deducted.
I'm not saying that you don't know how to operate a business or fill out a basic 1040ES to report and pay estimated taxes; those are all irrelevant to even bring up. I'm just saying that, if you (and your accountants) are of the impression that a $200,000 capital expense in 2011 has to be amortized over X number of years, then you're not up to date with tax law changes. Plain and simple.
-
There are actually quite a few limitations when you dig into this... For instance, assuming I'm reading the correct version, the first year deduction limitation for passenger cars or trucks that have been purchased in 2011 is only around $11k. You cannot deduct the entire amount during the first year.
Yup, you're reading the correct version. There's also a $25,000 limitations for SUVs and other vehicles above a certain weight. There are also different limitations for restaurant equipment and assets. There are also different limitations for farm equipment, I believe.
Considering that everyone bitches about how my posts are long, I wasn't going to ramble on with my alleged "cluelessness" that was just going to be dismissed anyways as "whippersnapper" shit. If I can't get someone to look at a statute and acknowledge that their accountants just might be wrong, then there's really no need in trying to spell out every element and exception to the law. I mean, hell, he's been doing this for 23 bazillion years now, and he has forty eight accountants reviewing everything ninety three and a half times; who cares what a federal law says?
My main point was that, for the vast majority of expenses (including the majority of capital expenses), there is a way to claim it in the year that you spent it. This doesn't mean that it is as simple as "gross income - all expenses = taxable income;" it's clearly not that simple. But when virtually every operating expense and most capital expenses are fully deductible in one year, it's relatively damn close most of the time. And if it's not, then it's time to have a talk with your accountants, because these new laws changed a lot that they might not be aware of. I don't spend my time at the I.R.S.'s practitioner liaison group meetings and reading updates from them for my health and sanity.
-
Yup, you're reading the correct version. There's also a $25,000 limitations for SUVs and other vehicles above a certain weight. There are also different limitations for restaurant equipment and assets. There are also different limitations for farm equipment, I believe.
You're referencing only a few of many...
Considering that everyone bitches about how my posts are long, I wasn't going to ramble on with my alleged "cluelessness" that was just going to be dismissed anyways as "whippersnapper" shit. If I can't get someone to look at a statute and acknowledge that their accountants just might be wrong, then there's really no need in trying to spell out every element and exception to the law. I mean, hell, he's been doing this for 23 bazillion years now, and he has forty eight accountants reviewing everything ninety three and a half times; who cares what a federal law says?
My main point was that, for the vast majority of expenses (including the majority of capital expenses), there is a way to claim it in the year that you spent it. This doesn't mean that it is as simple as "gross income - all expenses = taxable income;" it's clearly not that simple. But when virtually every operating expense and most capital expenses are fully deductible in one year, it's relatively damn close most of the time. And if it's not, then it's time to have a talk with your accountants, because these new laws changed a lot that they might not be aware of. I don't spend my time at the I.R.S.'s practitioner liaison group meetings and reading updates from them for my health and sanity.
You don't have to post a novel to get your point across, but I would expect you to keep from making factually incorrect statements or misleading assertions like the ones below. I mean after all, you're a tax attorney.
Dude...a car is also a capital expense. I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server. I'm not just explaining how to treat a car. I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.
Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses. Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions), that would normally be amortized over several years.
-
You don't have to post a novel to get your point across, but I would expect you to keep from making factually incorrect statements or misleading assertions like the ones below. I mean after all, you're a tax attorney.
Sorry, but there are only a handful of exceptions. You do see where I stated there are exceptions, right? I mean, you bolded it and all...cars, restaurant equipment, and farm equipment are the only ones of which I'm aware. Even then, the exceptions are determined in such a manner that it is reasonable for any average business to not exceed those exceptions.
Like I said, I'm not going to elaborately expound upon all of the exceptions within a law, as most of you love to complain about the length of my posts. The initial example that was proposed was a server; that capital expense does not fall under any exceptions. You can claim the entire amount of the purchase of a server, up to $500,000. Other capital expenses may fall under various exceptions, but those exceptions are few, and they are reasonable.
Yet again, my whole point was that not every capital expense has to be amortized over X number of years. To blindly accept such a fact is to accept ignorance of tax law changes. If your accountants claim that every capital expense must be amortized in its entirety, then they are not up to date with tax law changes.
-
Congratulations. None of those activities have anything to do with Section 179 and how capital expenses can be deducted.
I'm not saying that you don't know how to operate a business or fill out a basic 1040ES to report and pay estimated taxes; those are all irrelevant to even bring up. I'm just saying that, if you (and your accountants) are of the impression that a $200,000 capital expense in 2011 has to be amortized over X number of years, then you're not up to date with tax law changes. Plain and simple.
Congratulations. You continue to fail to see the basic point because you're focusing on the irrelevant. You're like a babbling brick wall.
Simple fact and the only one that matters: What the K1 says, that number that gives Obama license to consider small business owners "rich" and demonize us is not a true indicator of how much money that person "made" or has at his disposal.
There's not a motherfucking statute on earth that addresses that.
-
I'm thinking VV needs to become K's tax attorney since he seems to know how to save him some damn money.
-
I'm not so sure about this. Do hookers file taxes?
Nope, but if we had a consumption tax like I am talking about they would pay their fair share every time they buy food, purfume, summers eve, stripper heels, and slutty clothing. Oh my, does that generate new tax revenues without taking more of peoples pay checks? What a novel idea!
-
I'm thinking VV needs to become K's tax attorney since he seems to know how to save him some damn money.
Yep. He knows more than all the accountants I pay to take care of this for me.
His posts are so awesome they're like this:
(http://glennbeckreport.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Talking-out-ass.jpg)
-
Simple fact and the only one that matters: What the K1 says, that number that gives Obama license to consider small business owners "rich" and demonize us is not a true indicator of how much money that person "made" or has at his disposal.
I don't disagree with that. My only contention is that the one reason you cited for this ginormous discrepancy between the K-1 and what is actually profit was capital expenses. My response was that there are now exceptions which rectify that to a very large degree.
Can you claim the entirety of every single capital expense in one year? No. There are exceptions to every rule. But the vast majority of business expenses can be deducted in one year, including the majority of capital expenses. It's not as simple as "gross income - all business expenses = taxable income," but it's pretty damn close now due to these capital expense rules, especially for self-employed business owners that aren't grossing millions.
I had asked you what expenses you can't claim out of honest curiosity; you brought up capital expenses, not me. Sorry that your accountants didn't make you aware of new exceptions that allow you to not have to amortize the entirety of those expenses over several years.
-
Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it. :taunt:
Moving on...
So yeah, this monster just wants to crush these poor businesses with unprecedented taxes on them.
Or, you know, exactly the opposite.
From the State of the Union.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/2012-state-union-address-enhanced-version#transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/2012-state-union-address-enhanced-version#transcript)
With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we’re providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.
So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away.
After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.
-
Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it. :taunt:
We're not talking about his splendid knowledge of tax laws, Chizzy. We're not even talking about his arrogant youth.
We're talking about day to day reality as evidenced by more than a decade of business tax returns and experience versus paper theory.
Infinite wisdom? Never claimed it. Only that I know what people like me face on a day to day, year to year basis.
Funny, for all his posturing and grandstanding about specific details and minutiae nobody ever really addressed the REAL issue, which is the undeniable fact that just because your K1 says you "made" $500,000 that isn't what you actually have in cash on hand. That's the only part of the entire back and forth that has any resonance.
That was my only real point, derailed by his worthless examination of random examples tossed out (that were just that, examples and not intended to represent the specifics because I have no interest in going back through my taxes line by line to prove a message board point) and focus on the irrelevant. His puffery was insulting.
If he is able to take my tax returns and income and make it so that I can end the year with what the return says I "made" then somebody is going to jail.
As for Obama, the question is do you believe what he says or do you judge on what he does.
Stuffed shirts, charlatans, psycopaths. They all talk a good game. He's full of big words and equally full of himself.
-
As for Obama, the question is do you believe what he says or do you judge on what he does.
Stuffed shirts, charlatans, psycopaths. They all talk a good game. He's full of big words and equally full of himself.
So you're just criticizing him for what you think it feels like he would do.
Not based on what he has actually done as President.
Not based on what he says he plans to do. Because, of course, he's a filthy liar and can't be trusted.
This, again, is the entire point of this thread.
-
So you're just criticizing him for what you think it feels like he would do.
Not based on what he has actually done as President.
Not based on what he says he plans to do. Because, of course, he's a filthy liar and can't be trusted.
This, again, is the entire point of this thread.
He hasn't DONE anything. He's talked about doing. He's taken vacations. He's flown his family around the world at ridiculous expense. He's played more golf than Eisenhower.
The economy is no better and his ideas for fixing it are untenable.
He has no idea how to manage a business because he never has. In his world money just appears. It isn't made or earned, it's granted. That's fucked up.
He gives a good speech. He gave good speeches several years ago. That's why all the teary-eyed, hairy armpitted women lined up behind him.
He promised "change" and has delivered nothing but rhetoric, division and more spending.
I'm probably more republican than democrat, more conservative than liberal. But I don't vote for the party, I vote for the person. I've voted for democrats. And republicans. And independents. I'll do all of that again. But I saw through Obama. He's nothing but an impotent, empty shell with a glib vibe.
You ask me he's set the presidency back 100 years in his approach to the entire thing. He has no respect for the office, instead he brings to it a sense of entitlement. Does the motherfucker not have enough ties? He can't wear one in public more than once a year?
He's the worst of both worlds, Chizadder. He's a puff of hot air who thinks he's an achiever. He's 99% ego and 1% action.
If a bottle of used douchewater was running against him I'd vote for that. I will probably write in the name of my dog this year -- his name is Tucker if you want to help me get the groundswell going -- because he's the worst president in my memory and there isn't a clearly better alternative on the republican side.
-
Sorry, but there are only a handful of exceptions. You do see where I stated there are exceptions, right? I mean, you bolded it and all...cars, restaurant equipment, and farm equipment are the only ones of which I'm aware. Even then, the exceptions are determined in such a manner that it is reasonable for any average business to not exceed those exceptions.
I suppose that depends what sort of business you own along with all of the other exceptions that you haven't listed. What about real property such as land, buildings and other structures? What about HVAC equipment? What about property used outside of the United States? What about property used in lodging or hotels? Handful of exceptions... I believe your statements a car is also a capital expense, Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, and with very few exceptions are a bit misleading and essentially inaccurate. I mean, if you're going to share your expert tax knowledge, you should at least do so accurately, and you don't need to post an entire volume of an encyclopedia to keep from making inaccurate statements.
-
We're talking about day to day reality as evidenced by more than a decade of business tax returns and experience versus paper theory.
Ahh, yes. "Paper theory."
Three years of bookkeeping and reviewing our business's returns is "paper theory." Three years of reviewing other taxpayers' individual and business returns (far more in number and variety than the mere 15'ish that you've had accountants do for you) is "paper theory." Three years of reviewing taxpayers' account transcripts and examination reports from the I.R.S. and State Department which detail why expenses were or were not allowed to be deducted is "paper theory." Three years of appealing I.R.S. and State Department decisions to prove that expenses should be allowed as deductions is "paper theory." Being a member of the I.R.S.'s Practitioner Liaison Group to stay up to date on tax laws that are used in real-life is just "paper theory."
Got it.
Maybe I don't have 15 years experience of allowing accountants to hand me a K-1, but I'd dare say that three years spent actively reviewing, learning, keeping up to date with, and challenging tax laws is slightly more informative than sending three sets of accounting firms checks and assuming that they'll do the necessary research for me.
Funny, for all his posturing and grandstanding about specific details and minutiae nobody ever really addressed the REAL issue, which is the undeniable fact that just because your K1 says you "made" $500,000 that isn't what you actually have in cash on hand. That's the only part of the entire back and forth that has any resonance.
That was my only real point, derailed by his worthless examination of random examples tossed out (that were just that, examples and not intended to represent the specifics because I have no interest in going back through my taxes line by line to prove a message board point) and focus on the irrelevant. His puffery was insulting.
Again, I initially stated that the vast majority of business expenses are deductible, and thus there shouldn't really be that much of a discrepancy between net profit and what the K-1 indicates. Some discrepancy? Sure. A huge discrepancy? Only if your business is making large unnecessary expenses, for which you shouldn't reasonably expect a deduction in the first place.
If businesses were allowed to only report what was realistically in their bank account at the end of the year regardless of where that money was spent, then no one would pay taxes. Everyone would buy a shit ton of assets on December 31, 2011, leaving their account at $0, then resell them on January 5, 2012. As long as they sold them for roughly what they bought them for, they would have no taxable income on the sale, as their basis would offset the proceeds. They get their money back, and only lost whatever small percentage of depreciation occurred over those few days. Hell, then they'd even be able to claim that as a deduction, so they'd come out further ahead by not paying taxes and getting a deduction for doing so.
The system we have is far from perfect, but its purpose is to prevent tomfoolery like that. Any "ordinary and necessary" business expense is intended to be covered by current allowable deductions, and in actual practice, the vast majority of business expenses are deductible. I asked, for informative purposes, what expenses you are unable to claim, and you presented a hypothetical expense that, in reality, you are able claim. Sorry, but that doesn't refute my point that the vast majority of business expenses are deductible. You can bitch and moan about how I'm nitpicking at examples, but you provided the failed example. So much for 15 years of "tax experience," eh?
-
Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it.
Well, since you keep throwing around the tax attorney schiznit... It's the theoretical understanding versus the real-world application argument. On the surface, Vandy is essentially correct to the extent of allowable deductions, however in practice, it's nowhere near as simple as his posts seem to suggest. That's really it.
So what you're saying is that under OBAMA, as part of his evil stimulus plan, he actually took the tax burden Kaos is blaming him for, and eliminated it?
What a monster.
By the way, Section 179 predates Obama. I've been using it since the mid-2000s. The only things that really changed in 2010 and 2011 were the limits.
And, he's no monster. He's just an idiot.
-
I suppose that depends what sort of business you own along with all of the other exceptions that you haven't listed. What about real property such as land, buildings and other structures? What about HVAC equipment? What about property used outside of the United States? What about property used in lodging or hotels? Handful of exceptions... I believe your statements a car is also a capital expense, Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, and with very few exceptions are a bit misleading and essentially inaccurate. I mean, if you're going to share your expert tax knowledge, you should at least do so accurately, and you don't need to post an entire volume of an encyclopedia to keep from making inaccurate statements.
When you consider that virtually every asset that is personal property that is used in every industry except the handful that are eliminated, then yes, there are very few exceptions. Look at the list of what's not allowed, and then sit down for thirty seconds and think of what you can name off that is allowed. It should become clear very soon and with little effort that the exceptions are small in number when compared to the allowances.
Now, as for your bolded part, yes, one could be misled to think that the entirety of a vehicle expense could be claimed. However, I did acknowledge the exceptions, but like I said, I wasn't going to take the time to explain the exceptions, because ultimately it all gets dismissed as "puffery," "arrogance," and "paper theory" in the end.
I ask for an example of a non-deductible expense, and in response I got a deductible expense. But when I attempt to identify what's wrong with the example, the "get off my lawn" rabble commences, and excuses are given about how he's not going to go through his returns to find what it is that he is bitching about. Either you know what it is that you're bitching about or you don't; all I ask is that someone not start belittling my knowledge or experience when they provide a faulty example that doesn't represent their tax grievances.
-
Well, since you keep throwing around the tax attorney schiznit... It's the theoretical understanding versus the real-world application argument.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't live in the fictitious land of hobbits known as Middle Earth; all of my "theoretical understanding" is very much used in practice in the real (human) world.
I have a hard time understanding this whole "paper theory" stance that has been brought up recently. A law says that you can claim X expense in Y fashion. When you fill out your return, you claim X expense in Y fashion like the law says. If you reported X expense in Y fashion in accordance with the law, then you won't be assessed taxes, interest, and penalties due to improper reporting of expenses.
"Theoretical laws" do apply in real life. Aside from that, our business does file returns. I do review other people's returns. I do review detailed examination reports from the I.R.S. which explain why returns were allowed or disallowed as filed. It's not like I just sit in an office and write theories on how laws could be applied in the hypothetical real world if they were construed completely differently from how they're construed in actual practice.
I mean, I blow dudes in my office from time to time...but there's actual, real-life work being done there as well.
And, he's no monster. He's just an idiot.
(http://ayfkm2012.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/obama-economic-plan.jpg)
-
When you consider that virtually every asset that is personal property that is used in every industry except the handful that are eliminated, then yes, there are very few exceptions. Look at the list of what's not allowed, and then sit down for thirty seconds and think of what you can name off that is allowed. It should become clear very soon and with little effort that the exceptions are small in number when compared to the allowances.
Just by the way you're phrasing it, the assertion is ridiculous. Some of those exceptions are huge, especially if you're running a small business and encounter one of these so-called few exceptions.
Now, as for your bolded part, yes, one could be misled to think that the entirety of a vehicle expense could be claimed. However, I did acknowledge the exceptions, but like I said, I wasn't going to take the time to explain the exceptions, because ultimately....
You don't need to explain everything about Section 179. Just keep from making incorrect statements.
-
Yep. The attorney is correct. When I showed a "profit" of xxx,xxx on a business i bought, merged and closed without ever bringing in a dime of actual income (it's a complicated situation involving multiple partners, rollovers from priot years, exclusions and two divisions) I guess I actually had $xxx,xxx in the bank.
His three whole years of reviewing shit certainly trumps my lifetime of creating the records those like him review.
I'm goin to the bank now to get them to write me a check. Since the account for they portIon of my business has been closed for five years or more im sure the bank will be so glad to find out what to do with all that excess money theyve had all this time. Maybe I will even get interest.
I'm going to use that bonus to put in a swimming pool. And if there is enough left over I'm going to fly you all down to help me dedicate it. i
Pffftt.
-
Just by the way you're phrasing it, the assertion is ridiculous. Some of those exceptions are huge, especially if you're running a small business and encounter one of these so-called few exceptions.
Most small businesses won't be running into those exceptions frequently. Think about it...how many small businesses rent, not own, office space? Thus, when the air conditioner goes out, it's not their expense. Because they don't buy their offices, they don't have a real property expense very often, if ever. How many small businesses started in the United States are going to have personal or real property located in another country?
The whole topic of this discussion was the "little guy" that gets misclassified as as the "rich guy." A small business, as defined by the SBA for their reports, has under 500 employees and less than $10 million in gross income. In 2004, there were 26.8 million returns for these businesses classified as "small businesses." 58% of those business grossed $25,000 or less; 88% of them had no more than $250,000 gross.
What's with all the numbers? To show that most small businesses aren't making a whole lot, and thus they normally don't have the ability to make these rather large expenditures that are not allowed as an immediately deductible expense. 58% of small businesses aren't going out there and buying real property with $25,000 in gross profits. They're not buying plane tickets to foreign countries, much less buying and using personal or real property in foreign countries. It's unlikely that most of the 30% who are making between $25,000 and $250,000 in gross profits are making large expenditures like these either.
Our business is a prime example of that. All of our expenses were deductible, and it's been that way for three years now. As much as I'd love to throw down $300,000 in one lump sum payment in one year on land and an office building, we just can't do it, and neither can most other small businesses. If you have the ability to make such huge expenses that have to be amortized, then maybe you shouldn't consider yourself the "little guy" that's getting misclassified, because you're well above 88% of other "small businesses."
Now, if we're just talking about all businesses regardless of size and gross profits, then sure, many businesses have capital expenses that are large as hell, but they are not able to be deducted in one year. As a result, the "fake number" produced on the income statement doesn't include the entirety of all ordinary and necessary business expenses.
But, if you're going to point out the flaws of this "fake number" that negatively affects your thriving business, then at least recognize the positive effects as well. Although you can't claim the entirety of your $300,000 real property expense in one year, you will be able to do so in subsequent years until that entire $300,000 has been deducted. Thus, for subsequent years when you actually had no real property expenses, you'll be deducting that expense from your income. That type of situation makes it possible for your "fake number" to actually reflect a lower amount of taxable income than what you really netted.
You don't need to explain everything about Section 179. Just keep from making incorrect statements.
Like I said, I acknowledged the exceptions. There was not a generalized statement that all capital expenses under $500,000 were immediately deductible; there was a disclaimer to recognize the exceptions to the general rule. I merely rambled off items that would be considered capital expenses, and then noted the general $500,000 deduction allowed for capital expenses, with an additional indication that exceptions do apply. Misleading? Yeah, sure, I can see that it could be. Incorrect? Not so much.
-
When I showed a "profit" of xxx,xxx on a business i bought, merged and closed without ever bringing in a dime of actual income (it's a complicated situation involving multiple partners, rollovers from priot years, exclusions and two divisions) I guess I actually had $xxx,xxx in the bank.
:blink:
So, your initial, one time purchase of a company years ago has plagued your "fake number" on your K-1 for 15 years? The one time merger and one time closing of a business has caused your K-1 to inaccurately reflect a higher taxable income for over a decade?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not complaining about non-deductible expenses that have consistently caused your K-1 to show more income than you actually netted? Or have you been bitching all along about a couple of one time expenses years ago that you probably got to carry forward on subsequent years' returns, which probably positively affected your "fake number" for those years?
It would be nice if you could identify what your actual gripe is instead of throwing out faulty examples, then stating I'm spending too much time focusing on your faulty example, then bringing up something totally different that negatively affected a K-1 for one year, and has probably positively affected your K-1 for the 15 year amortization period of purchasing a business for more than $5,000.
-
:blink:
So, your initial, one time purchase of a company years ago has plagued your "fake number" on your K-1 for 15 years? The one time merger and one time closing of a business has caused your K-1 to inaccurately reflect a higher taxable income for over a decade?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not complaining about non-deductible expenses that have consistently caused your K-1 to show more income than you actually netted? Or have you been bitching all along about a couple of one time expenses years ago that you probably got to carry forward on subsequent years' returns, which probably positively affected your "fake number" for those years?
It would be nice if you could identify what your actual gripe is instead of throwing out faulty examples, then stating I'm spending too much time focusing on your faulty example, then bringing up something totally different that negatively affected a K-1 for one year, and has probably positively affected your K-1 for the 15 year amortization period of purchasing a business for more than $5,000.
God. One example. There are varying factors that affect it every year. One year you can take research credit. The next you can't. What percentage of each employee's time is devoted to research. Please don't fucking go over all that, too. I know how it works.
It's a simple fucking proposition. You don't understand it. I can't make you.
Cash in - cash out is not equal to bucks in hand profit. Nothing you can say, all your extensive THREE WHOLE YEARS of experience cannot refute that very basic fact. Sometimes it's relatively close. In most cases, for varying reasons, it's not.
I'd be glad if were the case. I'd love to have $xxx,xxx to stuff away for a bitchin' Christmas party. Maybe in your view that's how it simply does work. If so you're as fundamentally ignorant as our president. It's not that easy. Obama's characterization of "the rich" makes the broad assumption that it does. Thus my strenuous objection to his continued harping on that particular topic. Strenuous.
I see it year to year. On money that I and my companies bring in. I live it. Anything else you say beyond that is pointless.
-
Contrary to popular belief, I don't live in the fictitious land of hobbits known as Middle Earth; all of my "theoretical understanding" is very much used in practice in the real (human) world.
Of course, Mr. Simplistic Scenario. You're right... You've gots it all in your little law practice, and Section 179 covers the extent of all of your business's operations. Seriously... Just shut the fuck up. You know it's a helluvalot more complicated than the way you've been stating it. Section 179 is a very tiny piece of the overall tax code, and we haven't even touched on GAAP.
-
Of course, Mr. Simplistic Scenario. You're right... You've gots it all in your little law practice, and Section 179 covers the extent of all of your business's operations. Seriously... Just shut the fuck up. You know it's a helluvalot more complicated than the way you've been stating it. Section 179 is a very tiny piece of the overall tax code, and we haven't even touched on GAAP.
You can touch my gaap if you want. I call it "victoria."
-
Most small businesses won't be running into those exceptions frequently. Think about it...how many small businesses rent, not own, office space? Thus, when the air conditioner goes out, it's not their expense. Because they don't buy their offices, they don't have a real property expense very often, if ever. How many small businesses started in the United States are going to have personal or real property located in another country? .
The whole topic of this discussion was the "little guy" that gets misclassified as as the "rich guy." A small business, as defined by the SBA for their reports, has under 500 employees and less than $10 million in gross income. In 2004, there were 26.8 million returns for these businesses classified as "small businesses." 58% of those business grossed $25,000 or less; 88% of them had no more than $250,000 gross.
What's with all the numbers? To show that most small businesses aren't making a whole lot, and thus they normally don't have the ability to make these rather large expenditures that are not allowed as an immediately deductible expense. 58% of small businesses aren't going out there and buying real property with $25,000 in gross profits. They're not buying plane tickets to foreign countries, much less buying and using personal or real property in foreign countries. It's unlikely that most of the 30% who are making between $25,000 and $250,000 in gross profits are making large expenditures like these either.
Our business is a prime example of that. All of our expenses were deductible, and it's been that way for three years now. As much as I'd love to throw down $300,000 in one lump sum payment in one year on land and an office building, we just can't do it, and neither can most other small businesses. If you have the ability to make such huge expenses that have to be amortized, then maybe you shouldn't consider yourself the "little guy" that's getting misclassified, because you're well above 88% of other "small businesses."
Now, if we're just talking about all businesses regardless of size and gross profits, then sure, many businesses have capital expenses that are large as hell, but they are not able to be deducted in one year. As a result, the "fake number" produced on the income statement doesn't include the entirety of all ordinary and necessary business expenses.
But, if you're going to point out the flaws of this "fake number" that negatively affects your thriving business, then at least recognize the positive effects as well. Although you can't claim the entirety of your $300,000 real property expense in one year, you will be able to do so in subsequent years until that entire $300,000 has been deducted. Thus, for subsequent years when you actually had no real property expenses, you'll be deducting that expense from your income. That type of situation makes it possible for your "fake number" to actually reflect a lower amount of taxable income than what you really netted.
All of that babbling because I disagree with your assertion that there are very few exceptions to Section 179. Obviously, it's all relative depending on the business you own and how you operate that business. So, cut the shit already.
Like I said, I acknowledged the exceptions. There was not a generalized statement that all capital expenses under $500,000 were immediately deductible; there was a disclaimer to recognize the exceptions to the general rule. I merely rambled off items that would be considered capital expenses, and then noted the general $500,000 deduction allowed for capital expenses, with an additional indication that exceptions do apply. Misleading? Yeah, sure, I can see that it could be. Incorrect? Not so much.
But, but, but, it was misleading and inaccurate... If you're going to make a claim or an assertion like this, you should at least do so accurately.
-
You can touch my gaap if you want. I call it "victoria."
Only if it's clean-shaven...
-
God. One example. There are varying factors that affect it every year. One year you can take research credit. The next you can't.
:facepalm:
Directly from the I.R.S. website, Publication 535:
Research and Experimental Costs
The costs of research and experimentation are generally capital expenses. However, you can elect to deduct these costs as a current business expense.
. . .
When and how to elect. You make the election to deduct research and experimental costs by deducting them on your tax return for the year in which you first pay or incur research and experimental costs.
. . .
If you: Elect to deduct research and experimental costs as a current business expense
Then: Deduct all research and experimental costs in the first year you pay or incur the costs and all later years.
Maybe you didn't make the appropriate election for the first year you incurred your research expenses? Or maybe your horde of accountants really are turning out to be incompetent? I don't know, but when the I.R.S. says that you can elect to deduct research expenses for the current year and all later years, that does not indicate in the slightest that you can take deductions for research expenses in one year but not the next.
Yes, I know, I know...it's just another example. But how many examples do you have to throw out there and have shot down before it begins to become clear that most business expenses can be deducted? Again, I'm not stating that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between your K-1 and actual profit; I'm just saying that, with all of these available deduction methods for the vast majority of business expenses, it shouldn't be as drastically different as you're implying.
-
All of that babbling because I disagree with your assertion that there are very few exceptions to Section 179. Obviously, it's all relative depending on the business you own and how you operate that business. So, cut the shit already.
There are six total exceptions which identify non-qualifying property. For property that does qualify, but that has additional exceptions for the total amount that can be claimed, there is one exception for cars; I think the restaurant equipment exception was an older subsection that has since been taken out, as I can't see any other specific types of personal property in the statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000179----000-.html) that is identified as having a lower deduction limit.
Maybe I'm just used to the complexity of the I.R.C., but seven exceptions qualify as "very few" exceptions to me. And like you said, it's all relative; seven exceptions compared to how many thousands of types of business purchases? Like the Section 179 informational website (http://www.section179.org/simplifying_section_179.html) indicates, "There is little sense in allowing a deduction on only obscure equipment, so Section 179 is aimed at general business equipment as well as off-the-shelf software. If you use it in your business, it probably qualifies." It's not like the handful of exceptions has made it impossible to claim most business expenses as deductions in the year the expenses were paid.
-
:facepalm:
Directly from the I.R.S. website, Publication 535:
Maybe you didn't make the appropriate election for the first year you incurred your research expenses? Or maybe your horde of accountants really are turning out to be incompetent? I don't know, but when the I.R.S. says that you can elect to deduct research expenses for the current year and all later years, that does not indicate in the slightest that you can take deductions for research expenses in one year but not the next.
Yes, I know, I know...it's just another example. But how many examples do you have to throw out there and have shot down before it begins to become clear that most business expenses can be deducted? Again, I'm not stating that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between your K-1 and actual profit; I'm just saying that, with all of these available deduction methods for the vast majority of business expenses, it shouldn't be as drastically different as you're implying.
You're so motherfucking stubborn.
Maybe if you had more than three years of actual experience you'd know that tax laws change over the years. Section blippety fucking blah today may not be the same as section frappity farting flee was four years ago even though both relate to the same topic.
Again I tossed a random non-specific example, something I remembered from a round of discussions two, three maybe five years ago, and you honed in on it like it was the holy fucking grail.
I'm not at the accountants. I don't have the five-pound document sitting in front of me for all the different businesses. Some LLC, some S-Corp. I don't remember what the fuck all differences there were and are. Only that they exist and they vary.
Only that if you do a one-on-one comparison of cash in the bank and what the returns say there's not a one to one correlation but apparently you and the fucking president are so naive and or stubborn you both believe it to be so.
Damn son. You need medication.
-
Remind me again how this has anything to do with the President and his ignorance if it's the way it was "maybe five years ago" but NOT how it is done now, as has been clearly presented and cited for you.
But he's the stubborn one.
I don't understand why it's so hard for you to say "You know what, I misunderstood earlier, but thank you for enlightening me."
Must be a flaw with your generation.
-
I didnt misunderstand a fucking thing.
I know exactly what I'm talking about as it pertains to my situation and the essential point here.
You and the hobbit are taking out your ass.
-
You and the hobbit are taking out your ass.
I don't take anything out of my ass; I put it in.
-
I don't take anything out of my ass; I put it in.
I watched that softball get lobbed up there in slow motion.
-
The 8 pages of back and forth and the mushroom cloud that ensued brings me back to my original point.
If this much fuss was made on JUST the X, can imagine the discussion this created around the country in general? This was an eye catching headline/article and did just that. It sold copies. And it got Mr Sullivan's name to trend. Ratings people - same thing with Finebaum, Clay Travis, Brooks, Joe Schad and any other hack "journalist".
-
There are six total exceptions which identify non-qualifying property. For property that does qualify, but that has additional exceptions for the total amount that can be claimed, there is one exception for cars; I think the restaurant equipment exception was an older subsection that has since been taken out, as I can't see any other specific types of personal property in the statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000179----000-.html) that is identified as having a lower deduction limit.
One exception for cars, another for trucks and another for vehicles more than 6000 GVWR... Section 179(f)(2) links to Section 168(e)(7) which defines qualified restaurant property and specifically excludes it from Bonus Depreciation. Took just a few seconds to press Control-F, type "rest" and find the information...
Maybe I'm just used to the complexity of the I.R.C., but seven exceptions qualify as "very few" exceptions to me. And like you said, it's all relative; seven exceptions compared to how many thousands of types of business purchases? Like the Section 179 informational website (http://www.section179.org/simplifying_section_179.html) indicates, "There is little sense in allowing a deduction on only obscure equipment, so Section 179 is aimed at general business equipment as well as off-the-shelf software. If you use it in your business, it probably qualifies." It's not like the handful of exceptions has made it impossible to claim most business expenses as deductions in the year the expenses were paid.
That Section 179 website has not been completely updated. Don't use it if you plan to follow the rules this year. It's not completely accurate.
-
One exception for cars, another for trucks and another for vehicles more than 6000 GVWR
Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars. But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length. This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet. So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.
Section 179(f)(2) links to Section 168(e)(7) which defines qualified restaurant property and specifically excludes it from Bonus Depreciation.
Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes. Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense. Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.
You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.
Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance. This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179. Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.
That Section 179 website has not been completely updated. Don't use it if you plan to follow the rules this year. It's not completely accurate.
The purpose of Section 179 is still the same: to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses. That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise. When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.
-
Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars. But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length. This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet. So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.
Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes. Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense. Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.
You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.
Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance. This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179. Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.
The purpose of Section 179 is still the same: to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses. That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise. When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.
Oh yeah, oh yeah....well youre a, a, a....poopy face boo boo head.
I'm with GF..... :facepalm:
-
Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars. But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length. This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet. So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.
Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes. Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense. Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.
You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.
Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance. This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179. Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.
The purpose of Section 179 is still the same: to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses. That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise. When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.
Seriously? Stop already... You push things far beyond any reasonable or rational discussion. In your simple operation, it provides tax relief. In others, the exceptions potentially limit the extent of any relief. The end... :rolleyes:
-
Seriously? Stop already... You push things far beyond any reasonable or rational discussion. In your simple operation, it provides tax relief. In others, the exceptions potentially limit the extent of any relief. The end... :rolleyes:
I'm being unreasonable or irrational for pointing out your incorrect application of a Section 168 exception to Section 179? Odd...I thought you were all about making sure that statements aren't misleading or incorrect...
-
I'm being unreasonable or irrational for pointing out your incorrect application of a Section 168 exception to Section 179? Odd...I thought you were all about making sure that statements aren't misleading or incorrect...
No... Actually, that part went completely over your head. I told you how Section 179 references Section 168 in the qualification description of restaurant property. By the way, Section 179 also references Section 168 for descriptions of leasehold improvement property, 168(e)(6), and retail improvement property, 168(e)(8). These are more exceptions.
-
No... Actually, that part went completely over your head. I told you how Section 179 references Section 168 in the qualification description of restaurant property. By the way, Section 179 also references Section 168 for descriptions of leasehold improvement property, 168(e)(6), and retail improvement property, 168(e)(8). These are more exceptions.
No, I think it went over your head; the manner in which Section 179 references Section 168 does not, in the slightest, indicate that Section 168 somehow alters or adds exceptions to Section 179.
Once more, any rules about how deductions are treated under Section 168 are not applicable to how deductions are treated under Section 179. The references of which you speak are as follows:
(d) Definitions and special rules
(1) Section 179 property
For purposes of this section, the term “section 179 property” means property—
(A) which is—
(i) tangible property (to which section 168 applies)
This subsection merely gives a definition to "section 179 property," and mentions that Section 168 also applies to this tangible property. Like I stated, you can claim Bonus Depreciation in addition to Section 179 deductions if you were not able to claim the entirety of the deduction under 179. This reference does not mean that any exceptions within Section 168 affect how tangible property is handled under Section 179.
(5) Section not to apply to certain noncorporate lessors
This section shall not apply to any section 179 property which is purchased
by a person who is not a corporation and with respect to which such person
is the lessor unless—
(A) the property subject to the lease has been manufactured or produced
by the lessor, or
(B) the term of the lease (taking into account options to renew) is less than
50 percent of the class life of the property (as defined in section 168 (i)(1))
This merely points to a definition in Section 168. Once again, it doesn't alter or add any exceptions to Section 179.
(e) Special rules for qualified disaster assistance property
(2) Qualified section 179 disaster assistance property
For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified section 179 disaster
assistance property” means section 179 property (as defined in subsection
(d)) which is qualified disaster assistance property (as defined in section
168 (n)(2)).
Yet again, merely a reference to a definition from Section 168; nothing indicates that Section 168 alters Section 179 in any way.
(f) Special rules for qualified real property
(2) Qualified real property
For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified real property” means—
(A) qualified leasehold improvement property described in section
168 (e)(6),
(B) qualified restaurant property described in section 168 (e)(7), and
(C) qualified retail improvement property described in section 168
(e)(8).
More definitions. The exclusion of most real property from Section 179 was already included in the initial 6 exceptions for non-qualified property that I mentioned. These exceptions actually allow you to claim some real property, instead of completely disallowing all real property.
Statutes reference other statutes all of the time in order to give definitions, or otherwise mention that other statutes may also apply to the subject matter of the statute you're reading. However, this doesn't mean that rules from Section 168 apply to Section 179.
-
Fuck me like a goat.......
:suicide:
-
No, I think it went over your head; the manner in which Section 179 references Section 168 does not, in the slightest, indicate that Section 168 somehow alters or adds exceptions to Section 179.
Once more, any rules about how deductions are treated under Section 168 are not applicable to how deductions are treated under Section 179. The references of which you speak are as follows:
Put down the crack pipe long enough to at least focus on the references that we're discussing.
(f) Special rules for qualified real property
(2) Qualified real property
For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified real property” means—
(A) qualified leasehold improvement property described in section 168 (e)(6),
(B) qualified restaurant property described in section 168 (e)(7), and
(C) qualified retail improvement property described in section 168 (e)(8).
I don't think I'm wrong in the way I'm reading and understand this. The definitions under Section 168 clarify what qualified real property means for these three items. If your property fails to satisfy the referenced definitions in Section 168, you're probably not going to be able to treat them as qualified real property under Section 179 and be allowed to fully expense those types of depreciable assets.
:&
What about the LED exclusion?
-
I take it GarMan and VV havent fucked yet?
-
I take it GarMan and VV havent fucked yet?
Oh they have, several times, just having a lovers quarrel.
-
Oh they have, several times, just having a lovers quarrel.
Well, if he'd only keep his GAAP trimmed or shave it every once and a while...
-
Well, if he'd only keep his GAAP trimmed or shave it every once and a while...
:bugs:
-
I don't think I'm wrong in the way I'm reading and understand this. The definitions under Section 168 clarify what qualified real property means for these three items. If your property fails to satisfy the referenced definitions in Section 168, you're probably not going to be able to treat them as qualified real property under Section 179 and be allowed to fully expense those types of depreciable assets.
Yes, but like I said, the six exclusions for non-qualified property that I originally mentioned included real property. These additional exceptions are actually allowances; they are not exceptions which exclude additional property, but are rather exceptions which allow additional property. So this section that you're highlighting does not add to the number of exceptions which place limitations, as the limitation on real property was already counted.
What about the LED exclusion?
They only have one for sweet LED jackets...
-
Yes, but like I said, the six exclusions for non-qualified property that I originally mentioned included real property. These additional exceptions are actually allowances; they are not exceptions which exclude additional property, but are rather exceptions which allow additional property. So this section that you're highlighting does not add to the number of exceptions which place limitations, as the limitation on real property was already counted.
Qualifications as allowances... That's sort of like referring to taxation as investment. These allowances also have the affect of restricting certain types of property that do not satisfy the qualifications. In other words, they also serve as limitations or exclusions. The end...
-
Qualifications as allowances... That's sort of like referring to taxation as investment. These allowances also have the affect of restricting certain types of property that do not satisfy the qualifications. In other words, they also serve as limitations or exclusions. The end...
Yes, and the real property limitation was already taken into account. So we're still at 8 exceptions, which is not many relative to the thousands of types of purchases which can be deducted according to the general rules of Section 179.
And this is just using Section 179 as one example of ways in which you can claim more of a capital expense in one year. Section 168's Bonus Depreciation allowance gives you the ability to immediately deduct 50% of various types of property. Then there are the multiple options for depreciation deductions under MACRS.
My point was that there are a variety of rules affecting capital expenses. It's not as simple as saying, "A $50,000 server is a capital expense, and so I have to amortize it over five years." Section 179 allows for a majority of business capital expenses to be deducted in one year as a current expense. With exceptions like these, there should not be hundreds of thousands of dollars difference between reported taxable income and actual net profits.
Some difference? Yes. Hundreds of thousands? No, not unless you're a multi-million dollar corporation making hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases which happen to all be the 6 types of properties completely excluded from Section 179.
-
:crickets:
-
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/van.gif)
-
(http://rgifs.gifbin.com/g6011619998.gif)
-
A bump to an old topic.
As I've said before, I agree with Bill Maher on less than 10% of the shit he says, but I still download his show and watch it illegally every once in a while.
His closing "New Rule" a couple of weeks ago was related to this topic that this thread is about.
I agree with the everything he's saying here, except the part about how he's mad about it. (And, yes, some of the punchlines are a little radical as well).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJABF5_yBXA
-
A bump to an old topic.
As I've said before, I agree with Bill Maher on less than 10% of the shit he says, but I still download his show and watch it illegally every once in a while.
His closing "New Rule" a couple of weeks ago was related to this topic that this thread is about.
I agree with the everything he's saying here, except the part about how he's mad about it. (And, yes, some of the punchlines are a little radical as well).
...
As a legal and current subscriber to HBO I'm reporting your malfeasance.
-
A bump to an old topic.
As I've said before, I agree with Bill Maher on less than 10% of the shit he says, but I still download his show and watch it illegally every once in a while.
His closing "New Rule" a couple of weeks ago was related to this topic that this thread is about.
I agree with the everything he's saying here, except the part about how he's mad about it. (And, yes, some of the punchlines are a little radical as well).
I agree too with some of what he said. Mainly the part about how Republicans aren't the answer.
But Obama has been a divisive president. He has not yet cut spending and while Bush did spend a lot, Obama is trying to move that exorbitant amount of money to other places. Our sense of nationalism has decayed and our reputation abroad has deteriorated. Many of his polices (healthcare bill) are short-sighted, a precarious side effect of Keynesian economics, which leads me to think that the future of the country is not safe in his hands.
Bill Maher is doing what most Democrats do, and he's doing what most Republicans do. He is shifting blame and derision to the other side in order to keep people he doesn't like personally from being elected.
-
As a legal and current subscriber to HBO I'm reporting your malfeasance.
And I'm reporting you to attackwatch.org for reporting someone else for exercising their right to break the law!
-
Many of his polices (healthcare bill) are short-sighted, a precarious side effect of Keynesian economics
He is shifting blame and derision to the other side in order to keep people he doesn't like personally from being elected.
Both points, excellent.
Bill Maher is a hypocrite because he prides himself on being a straight shooter, like him or not. He is anything but. He has personal opinions of issues and people and attempts to sway people in a partisan manner to that side. His condescending and rhetorical nature are also as shallow as a puddle.
-
And I'm reporting you to attackwatch.org for reporting someone else for exercising their right to break the law!
Bring it on, kid.
They don't scare me as much as teh MPAA and teh FCC scare AUChizad. :poke:
-
A bump to an old topic.
As I've said before, I agree with Bill Maher on less than 10% of the shit he says, but I still download his show and watch it illegally every once in a while.
His closing "New Rule" a couple of weeks ago was related to this topic that this thread is about.
I agree with the everything he's saying here, except the part about how he's mad about it. (And, yes, some of the punchlines are a little radical as well).
...
I recall posting before that I do watch Bill Maher's show semi-regularly. I consider any conservative/Republican willing to go on his show to have titanium balls because you will be heavily out-numbered and you will be alone. And I have to give Maher credit for amusing me (unlike Colbert, Jon Stewart...and Mike Huckabee who's show I can't stand...of course I can't stand him either but I digress).
Anyway, I do like that Maher doesn't hold any punches with the Democrats in some of his comments but given the choice between the Democrat and Republican ideology (and the lack of a viable alternative) I will chose Republican. The Tea Party Movement might be the beginning of a real alternative but I doubt it mainly because of the focus on polarizing social issues. We don't have the luxury to deal with that right now especially with what I think is the very dark cloud of another major economic crisis looming across the Atlantic and heading our way. We will not be able to ignore it for much longer.
...
But Obama has been a divisive president. He has not yet cut spending and while Bush did spend a lot, Obama is trying to move that exorbitant amount of money to other places. Our sense of nationalism has decayed and our reputation abroad has deteriorated. Many of his polices (healthcare bill) are short-sighted, a precarious side effect of Keynesian economics, which leads me to think that the future of the country is not safe in his hands.
...
Insightful.
First, the President is the one branch of the government that is supposed to rise above partisan politics and act in the best interest of the republic as a legislative facilitator; the Pharaoh Obama is horrible at this one fundamental aspect of his job (unless his party has an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate). He is supposed to be the man who can bring together the House and Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans along with the American People in a way that makes good, constitutional legislation which does not necessarily always mean 'compromise' (the latter has become a bad word amongst conservatives anyway). I recall Reagan being very good at this. Clinton was also good at it to an opposite extent.
Secondly, as a part of his job, the President has a more symbolic duty not particularly described in the constitution in that he is supposed to embody the pride and patriotism of the nation despite what party he is a member of; again, he is the one branch of government that essentially must rise above partisanship and be the face of the United States to the rest of the world representing our strength and resolve among other things, these two being the most important in these troubling economic times. The Pharaoh is a disaster at this; he's weak and the world knows it; as Maher said, "he couldn't be less threatening if he was carrying an iced tea and skittles."
-
I would like Maher more for his brashful nature if he were completely objective. Problem is he pretends to be but isn't. At least I have respect for Dennis Kucinich. Like him or not, the guy sticks to his guns and seems to be a decent guy.
-
First, the President is the one branch of the government that is supposed to rise above partisan politics and act in the best interest of the republic as a legislative facilitator; the Pharaoh Obama is horrible at this one fundamental aspect of his job (unless his party has an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate). He is supposed to be the man who can bring together the House and Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans along with the American People in a way that makes good, constitutional legislation which does not necessarily always mean 'compromise' (the latter has become a bad word amongst conservatives anyway). I recall Reagan being very good at this. Clinton was also good at it to an opposite extent.
I think he's trying to as evidenced by the things mentioned in this thread and Maher's rant.
He can't help that despite a very moderate record, every Republican I hear from screams about what a radical socialist, foreign policy pussy he is. They're acting like Veruca Salt kicking and pouting while completely ignoring his attempts to appease them. Seriously, what can he do to possibly please anyone on the right one tiny bit?
And as to your point about 'compromise' being a bad word for Republicans. EXACTLY my point.
This disgusts me that this is not satire or parody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bK3hpcqPuM
-
what can he do to possibly please anyone on the right one tiny bit?
Stop spending so goddamned much money that we don't have and make budget cuts!
-
Stop spending so goddamned much money that we don't have and make budget cuts!
(http://www.freedomworks.org/files/imagecache/full/Administration_chart_0.png)
-
I think he's trying to as evidenced by the things mentioned in this thread and Maher's rant.
He can't help that despite a very moderate record, every Republican I hear from screams about what a radical socialist, foreign policy pussy he is. They're acting like Veruca Salt kicking and pouting while completely ignoring his attempts to appease them. Seriously, what can he do to possibly please anyone on the right one tiny bit?
And as to your point about 'compromise' being a bad word for Republicans. EXACTLY my point.
This disgusts me that this is not satire or parody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bK3hpcqPuM
In all fairness, there should be NO compromise when it comes to a balanced budget. We have to control our spending....PERIOD.
-
(http://www.freedomworks.org/files/imagecache/full/Administration_chart_0.png)
What's the old saying? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone worth their weight in salt can twist numbers to make them look better (or worse).
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2011/02/20/obama-deficit_1.jpg)
-
(http://www.freedomworks.org/files/imagecache/full/Administration_chart_0.png)
Well for one, the % is based off of the relative debt that was there when taking office and doesn't even take into account % of GDP which is a better indicator. The lower the starting number is, the easier it is to see a higher %. In 1981 when Reagan took office the debt was around 994 billion. In 1988 when he left office it was around 2.3 trillion. He added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years whilst bankrupting the Soviet Union. The debt was 9.6 trillion when Obama was elected in 2008. For Fiscal Year 2012, it is projected by the Treasury to be 16.4 trillion. He will have added 6.8 trillion in 4 years. Do you really want to base your entire election philosophy off of that cutesy inaccurate graph that misrepresents? I just presented you some hard facts to look at. Think about it. He still has NOT balanced the budget or even submitted a decent budget.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png)
Two, Obama's 16% number is completely inaccurate. Is going from 9.6 to 16.4 = 16% gain? Seriously? I know you like the maths and fractions and all, but even you can see this doesn't add up.
-
What's the old saying? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone worth their weight in salt can twist numbers to make them look better (or worse).
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2011/02/20/obama-deficit_1.jpg)
Also, this is a % increase in PUBLIC DEBT which is only a fraction of the entire debt. You are correct, this is something that the Democratic Leader put together as propaganda. This is a very out of context chart.
WHO INCREASED THE DEBT? in big letters forgetting to tell you that the % numbers only apply to public debt. Very dishonest.
-
What's the old saying? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone worth their weight in salt can twist numbers to make them look better (or worse).
I'll concede this to be true, no doubt.
Any version of that chart, though, shows that Obama is not increasing the debt at a faster rate than Bush. I know, I know, you can't bring Bush into this because he's not the gold standard of Republicanism. But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's? That's the only reason I've heard so far for the contempt, and while I also would prefer less spending, it's not as out-of-this-world compared to his predecessors as you would like to believe.
Also, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which I believe is a good thing long term, but also increases the short term debt.
Chartz!
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/debtnobush0607.png)
-
But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's?
You are becoming an excellent little liberal.
I know of many, many, many conservatives who were OUTRAGED by Bush's spending. And they screamed it at the top of their lungs.
So your little statement above is wold make the Bill Maher types proud. Hang in there. You'll be a card carrying libtard in no time.
-
(http://www.freedomworks.org/files/imagecache/full/Administration_chart_0.png)
Since we are posting charts and all...... I fell like Ross Perot!
(http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ff4c2f88833014e875c2695970d-800wi)
(http://startthinkingright.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/obama-quadrupled-debt-spending1.png)
(http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png)
Chad do you really think that Obama is not spending money that we don't have? Really? Where did he get the money for the stimulus packages? Out of thin air? No, we borrowed that money, in other words, "we spent money that we didn't have". It's out of control. It was out of control under Bush and it's worse under Obama. Why do you think so many "right leaning independents" and those who labeled themselves "republicans" crossed the isle to vote for Obama in 08? B/c they were tired of the way it was going and he promised to change it. He is spending more money that any previous president. Balance the budget, cap what we can borrow and get our fiscal house in order, if he would do that, then more people would like him.
-
I'll concede this to be true, no doubt.
Any version of that chart, though, shows that Obama is not increasing the debt at a faster rate than Bush. I know, I know, you can't bring Bush into this because he's not the gold standard of Republicanism. But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's? That's the only reason I've heard so far for the contempt, and while I also would prefer less spending, it's not as out-of-this-world compared to his predecessors as you would like to believe.
Also, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which I believe is a good thing long term, but also increases the short term debt.
Chartz!
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/debtnobush0607.png)
It increased the debt because they didn't offset it with spending cuts. Spending stayed the same or went up while tax revenue decreased. Again, I don't like what Bush did either.
When Bush took office the Debt (all debts) was right at 6 trillion. When he left office it was right at 10 trillion. Increased 4 trillion in 8 years. 500 billion per year deficit on avg.
When Obama took office it was right at 10 trillion. At the end of his first term it will be right at 16 trillion. Increased 6 trillion in 4 years. Roughly 1.5 trillion per year deficit on avg.
1.5 trillion vs .5 trillion per year. He is sinking the budget into the red at 3 times the rate actually. Bush was bad, no doubt. Obama overspent into the red in one year what Reagan did in 8 - just to put it in perspective.
Below is a good picture of pure numbers and not %'s. %'s in this discussion are futile to a degree because the larger the debt keeps growing, the smaller the number will get.
(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif)
-
To put it in pesepctive this way too (VERY SCARY ACTUALLY):
National Debt in 2008 Election: 10 Trillion
End of Obama's First Term (per the CBO): 16.4 Trillion
End of Obama's 2nd Term (hypothetically per the CBO): 20-22 Trillion Projected
The debt we accumulated from 1913 to 2008: 10 Trillion
The debt we accumulated from 2008 to 2016: 10-12 Trillion
I don't see how anyone can even start to compare that to any other President. This is unprecedented.
:sad:
-
Also, this is a % increase in PUBLIC DEBT which is only a fraction of the entire debt. You are correct, this is something that the Democratic Leader put together as propaganda. This is a very out of context chart.
Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness. The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases. I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.
Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to. If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).
Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with. Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase. Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase. Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.
I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP. Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP. At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.
At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President: wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc. Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect. But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.
-
Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument. Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years. What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on? Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash. Is it the war? Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it? Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan?
You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here. And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well. But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war. I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?
-
Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument. Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years. What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on? Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash. Is it the war? Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it? Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan?
You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here. And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well. But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war. I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?
My black friends say they've gotten bags of cash dropped off at their doorsteps each month.
-
Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness. The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases. I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.
Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to. If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).
Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with. Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase. Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase. Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.
I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP. Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP. At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.
At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President: wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc. Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect. But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.
Your point about the %'s is exactly what I was saying.
The reason Obama is getting a lot of heat (and much of it warranted) is because he is advocating things that are spiraling the debt out of control. Healthcare, entitlements, etc are all things he champions. These things cost lots of money. He is also trying to offset some of that by taxing more people who make a good living, even though they are already paying a disproportionate %. A lot of people are for this because, to use an old colloquial english phrase, when someone robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul. The occupier types are Paul.
But to your point, yes the buck stops with him. Ive yet to see him or his Senate pass or submit a balanced budget. All on him to round up the troops and get it done. In fact, I think the Democrats are the ones playing politics with Paul Ryan's budget proposal so as not to tick off their constituency (Paul).
-
Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument. Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years. What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on? Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash. Is it the war? Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it? Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan?
You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here. And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well. But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war. I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?
A lot of it IS DoD spending. Here ya go Snag. This is the 2013 Budget:
Incoming:
Total receipts (in billions of dollars)::
Individual income tax 1,359
Corporate income tax 348
Social Security and other payroll tax 959
Excise tax 88
Customs duties 33
Estate and gift taxes 13
Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System 80
Other miscellaneous receipts 21
Total $2,902 billions or 2.8 trillion
Total outlays by agency (in billions of dollars):
Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations 672.9
Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid 940.9
Department of Education 71.9
Department of Veterans Affairs 139.7
Department of Housing and Urban Development 46.3
Department of State and Other International Programs 59.5
Department of Homeland Security 55.4
Department of Energy 35.0
Department of Justice 36.5
Department of Agriculture 154.5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17.8
National Intelligence Program 52.6
Department of Transportation 98.5
Department of the Treasury 110.3
Department of the Interior 13.5
Department of Labor 101.7
Social Security Administration 882.7
Department of Commerce 9.0
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 8.2
Environmental Protection Agency 8.9
National Science Foundation 7.5
Small Business Administration 1.4
Corporation for National and Community Service 1.1
Net interest 246
Disaster costs 2
Other spending 1,270.5
Total 3,803 or 3.803 trillion
-
National Intelligence Program 52.6
We all know this money (wherever its going) is being wasted.
-
Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness. The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases. I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.
Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to. If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).
Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with. Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase. Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase. Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.
I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP. Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP. At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.
At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President: wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc. Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect. But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.
Every cent can be deducted from Obama's taxes.
-
Every cent can be deducted from Obama's taxes.
No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.
-
No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.
*snicker*
-
No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.
Deductions don't exist.
-
Deductions don't exist.
What's a deduction?
-
Those dirty libruls over at Forbes spinning numbers...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
5/24/2012 @ 6:33PM |894,121 views
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?
Check out the chart –
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg)
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender†narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
-
The banks control the politicians regardless of party affiliation. All except one, Ron Paul.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-us-banks-told-to-make-plans-for-preventing-collapse-20120810,0,2404399.story
According to documents obtained by Reuters, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency first directed five banks -- which also include Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- to come up with these "recovery plans" in May 2010.
They told banks to consider drastic efforts to prevent failure in times of distress, including selling off businesses, finding other funding sources if regular borrowing markets shut them out, and reducing risk. The plans must be feasible to execute within three to six months, and banks were to "make no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector," according to the documents.
Spokespeople for the five banks declined to comment. The Federal Reserve also declined to comment.
The following started during the dubya years.
Who got bailed out?
Mutual fund companies such as BlackRock, BNY Mellon, T. Rowe Price, Dreyfus, and Legg Mason took advantage of federal assistance, plus large banks that provide money market funds to customers, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.
How much were taxpayers compensated for the bailout?
Despite the enormous size of the guarantees, the Treasury collected only $1.2 billion in fees from the participating funds. By Wilson’s calculation, most participating funds paid just 0.04 percent, or 4 basis points, for a year’s worth of insurance.
http://dailybail.com/home/the-us-treasurys-24-trillion-secret.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4&feature=youtu.be#t=130s
-
Those dirty libruls over at Forbes spinning numbers...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Again, another somewhat "out of context" catchy headline because we are dealing with revenues, spending and %'s here in relation to previous Presidents. The % is hard to increase as the number goes up (simple math). This is simply refering to % increase over the last administration.
What matters really is how much into the RED they each go, aka the Deficit. His budgets of 3.5-4 trillion are still by far the biggest in history...This study also isn't putting into account the massive 18% budget increase from 2008 to 2009 which was Obama's budget, not Bush's (as the article tries to claim). The Budget for FY 2009 was merely a Budget Resolution under Bush. All of the monetary appropriations for FY 2009 was passed by 2009's congress and Obama, not Bush. They are basically giving Bush the credit for the huge jump from 2.9 to 3.5 trillion Obama's 1st Fiscal Year, and then when the budget only went from 3.5 to 3.6 trillion the next 3 years, giving Obama THAT credit. Very misleading.
-
Again, another somewhat "out of context" catchy headline because we are dealing with revenues, spending and %'s here in relation to previous Presidents. The % is hard to increase as the number goes up (simple math). This is simply refering to % increase over the last administration.
What matters really is how much into the RED they each go, aka the Deficit. His budgets of 3.5-4 trillion are still by far the biggest in history...This study also isn't putting into account the massive 18% budget increase from 2008 to 2009 which was Obama's budget, not Bush's (as the article tries to claim). The Budget for FY 2009 was merely a Budget Resolution under Bush. All of the monetary appropriations for FY 2009 was passed by 2009's congress and Obama, not Bush. They are basically giving Bush the credit for the huge jump from 2.9 to 3.5 trillion Obama's 1st Fiscal Year, and then when the budget only went from 3.5 to 3.6 trillion the next 3 years, giving Obama THAT credit. Very misleading.
Just deduct it all. That works.
-
Bump.
If you recall, this thread was about how Obama is not the most liberal president of all time, as is often purported by those on the right, and rather, is very similar to Bush in more ways than not.
I mentioned how many of his foreign policies, such as continuing to wage war, dropping dictators like flies, and generally speaking, being somewhat of a warhawk supported this. That he extended the Bush Tax cuts, and has left Gitmo open for business. Etc. Etc.
I mentioned that it was insane to me that suddenly the same left that was shitting itself over Bush's war mongering, all of the sudden was completely cool with Obama doing essentially the same thing. The flip side of that is also true, which is that Republicans are no longer the "Rah-rah! USA!" cheerleaders they once were.
To update this with all of the recent scandals, my point is proven even further.
Now that Obama is using drones to kill US citizens, suddenly the left are the ones rationalizing that "Well, I mean, they're only going after the bad guys, and if it's effective, the ends justify the means" while the right is outraged by the belligerent war tactic.
Under Bush, the left thought the Patriot Act was the most despicable violation of civil liberties of all time. Welcome to 1984. The right rationalized that "they're not tapping my phones because I've got nothing to hide. If they're monitoring a suspected terrorist, then GOOD, that will help keep us safe."
Now, once again, it's completely flipped. The right is cuddled up with the ACLU. Our civil liberties are under attack. Outrage. The left, meanwhile, rationalizes that "They're just collecting meta-data. No one's listening in on YOUR personal phone calls. If it keeps us safer, it's all worth it."
This is why partisan politics drive me fucking insane. It's all one big hypocrisy. It's about your team more than it is about any principle or ideal. I watched Bill Maher this weekend, who flat out said that he didn't think this was a big deal because he "trusts" Obama, but giving a Republican this power would scare the shit out of him. At least he's honest, but this is irrational and wildly hypocritical. It's team sports.
My opinion, for the record? Which has not changed since the Patriot Act was first enacted? It's one of those 50-50 issues, where both sides have a valid argument. Most issues fall into this category for me, really. I know they're not interested in my phone calls. They're not trying to put me in jail (even for copyright violations). I appreciate it as a tool for keeping us generally safe. However, the idea that the government has the authority to monitor its citizens is very Orwellian, and while I don't think we're in communist China yet, that's a slippery slope precedent that we're setting if we leave this sort of thing unchecked.
Democrats: If you were shitting your pants outraged at the Patriot Act, you'd better be shitting your pants outraged over this.
Republicans: If you didn't give a shit about the Patriot Act, and thought the ends justified the means, you'd better feel the same way about it today.
-
I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.
:facepalm:
To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."
-
I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.
:facepalm:
To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."
I was cautiously optimistic when it passed. I didn't like the far reaching powers it gave, but I agreed with the need to be able to followup on terroristic activities. The theme then was that the government would not use it on you and I, just suspected terrorists.
And as usual, the old mantra of NEVER trust your government has come true.
-
I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.
:facepalm:
To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."
I have critiqued them both. Patriot Act was a bad idea the way it's written. No matter who wrote it or who is enforcing it.
So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.
-
So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.
Um...yeah...
And the reverse is also true. If you rationalized it then, why is it a complete and total outrage now? Because it's not your guy in office, obviously. Howard Dean said yesterday that he supports surveillance if it keeps Al Qaeda out of the country. When he was running for President, he said the Patriot Act was a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties."
And if you take the exact opposite opinion? That you supported the Patriot Act because it kept us safe from Al Qaeda, but Obama has demonstrated a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties"? Then you're just as wildly hypocritical.
It sounds like many here had the same opinion as me on the Patriot Act. It was uncomfortable, and you were not necessarily ok with it, but I didn't see you protesting. What changed besides the (R) next to the President's name is now a (D)?
Personally, I'm more outraged by the hypocrisy on both sides than the surveillance itself. Like I said, my personal opinion is unchanged. I see a little of both of the argument, but not outrage or blanket support in either direction. I do think some of these tactics are necessary in keeping us safe, the ends justify the means, and I don't believe anyone who is not an Al-Qaeda operative has anything to worry about. That being said, the 4th Amendment is at risk here, and that is unacceptable. That and it's just creepy.
I liked the way they put it here (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters)
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
-
So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.
I don't think he's saying that if some people were alright with it under Bush, then no one has a right to criticize it under Obama.
Rather, I think he's saying that those who were alright with it under Bush should be alright with it under Obama, and those who hated it under Bush should hate it under Obama. No one should be flipping sides just because "their team" is now doing it, yet they were flipping their shit when "their opponent" was doing it.
I liked the way they put it here (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters)
Your phone company also knows that information. Not necessarily defending the government's intrusion here, but just pointing out that these things that people think are private aren't actually all that private. We're probably watched and tracked by private companies as much as we are by the government. Phone records, medical records, internet records (cache files, cookies, browser apps, social media), etc.
Maybe it's very rare that someone at Verizon actually sits down and noses through my phone calls, but I would imagine the same could be said for the government. I haven't called an Afghanistan number in at least a year or two...
-
I don't think he's saying that if some people were alright with it under Bush, then no one has a right to criticize it under Obama.
Rather, I think he's saying that those who were alright with it under Bush should be alright with it under Obama, and those who hated it under Bush should hate it under Obama. No one should be flipping sides just because "their team" is now doing it, yet they were flipping their shit when "their opponent" was doing it.
:thumsup:
The first argument didn't even register, because it makes no sense. Obviously, SOME people are for or against anything at any point in time.
My point is that even if you now claim to have been opposed to the Patriot Act, you sure didn't make the stink out of it that you're making now.
-
Um...yeah...
And the reverse is also true. If you rationalized it then, why is it a complete and total outrage now? Because it's not your guy in office, obviously. Howard Dean said yesterday that he supports surveillance if it keeps Al Qaeda out of the country. When he was running for President, he said the Patriot Act was a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties."
And if you take the exact opposite opinion? That you supported the Patriot Act because it kept us safe from Al Qaeda, but Obama has demonstrated a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties"? Then you're just as wildly hypocritical.
It sounds like many here had the same opinion as me on the Patriot Act. It was uncomfortable, and you were not necessarily ok with it, but I didn't see you protesting. What changed besides the (R) next to the President's name is now a (D)?
Personally, I'm more outraged by the hypocrisy on both sides than the surveillance itself. Like I said, my personal opinion is unchanged. I see a little of both of the argument, but not outrage or blanket support in either direction. I do think some of these tactics are necessary in keeping us safe, the ends justify the means, and I don't believe anyone who is not an Al-Qaeda operative has anything to worry about. That being said, the 4th Amendment is at risk here, and that is unacceptable. That and it's just creepy.
I liked the way they put it here (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters)
I suggest you go back and read my previous posts the last 4 years or so criticizing Bush in re to the Patriot Act....long before anyone knew Obama was abusing it. I've never liked it. Same with Prescription Drug Plan, Auto Bailouts (also Bush) or no child left behind. Wasn't a big fan of Iraq either. Yeah we're still over in the middle east fighting this same war 12 years later. Maybe I'm just war weary but in hindsight it doesn't look like a well thought out operation. And that's no disrespect to the troops. More of a jab to Bush/Cheney/Haliburton and Obama for campaigning to end it quickly and doing nothing of the sort.
-
I think we all can agree that we don't need a government that spies on us 24/7 regaurdless of who the fuck is in charge.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/11/why-we-get-the-police-state-we-deserve-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-that.html
Why We Get the Police State We Deserve—and What We Can Do to Fix That
by Nick Gillespie Jun 11, 2013 12:46 PM EDT
Just look at the polls: everyone loves Big Brother when he’s got the right party affiliation. Nick Gillespie on how rank partisanship has trumped principles—and how to change that.
In the first flush of stories about how the National Security Agency is surveilling American citizens, one stomach-turning revelation hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves: we get the surveillance state we deserve because rank political partisanship trumps bedrock principle every goddamn time on just about every goddamn issue.
The journalist Glenn Greenwald, who jump-started this overdue conversation on civil liberties and the war on terrorism, has promised that the revelations are just getting started. But nothing that comes out can be more dispiriting than the simple truth that Democrats and Republicans are both happy to love Big Brother as long as he’s got the right party affiliation.
In late 2005, The New York Times and others exposed broad-based, constitutionally dubious NSA surveillance programs of American citizens. If memory serves, there was a Republican in the White House, and the GOP held both houses of Congress too.
In January 2006, Pew Research asked whether it was OK to collect info on “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading emails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.†A slim majority of all respondents—51 percent—said yes while 47 percent said no.
The partisan breakdown, however, was vastly different, with 75 percent of Republicans finding it acceptable and just 23 percent dissenting. When it came the Democrats, only 37 percent of Democrats signed off on NSA snooping, with a whopping 61 percent saying screw off.
It’s totally different, don’t you see, when my guy is running the show!
Fast-forward to June 2013, when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office after an easy reelection and his party controls the Senate. Pew asked respondents whether it’s OK that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.†This time around, it’s Democrats who overwhelmingly support collecting collecting yottabytes and exabytes of metadata on us all, with 64 percent saying they are totally fine with NSA surveillance programs and a measly 34 percent disagreeing. Among Republicans, enthusiasm for eye-in-the-sky surveillance has taken a major hit, with only 52 percent agreeing and 47 percent saying no.
(Don’t let the constitutional fig leaf about “secret court orders†in the newer version of Pew’s question fool you. To the extent that anyone knows anything about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, they know it’s a freaky hybrid of a kangaroo and a rubber stamp that even Dr. Moreau couldn’t have conceived at his most demented. In roughly 34,000 requests spanning 33 years, FISA courts have turned down applicants for surveillance orders a total of 11 times.)
The same predictable, partisan-fueled march of the lemmings shows up in questions about monitoring email. In 2002, when wisps of smoke still rose silently from the World Trade Center’s wreckage like lost souls in search of some beggared form of heaven and Attorney General John Ashcroft still attacked anyone who “would scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,†Pew asked, “Should the government be able to monitor everyone’s email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks?†To our credit as the Land of the Free, more Americans said no (47 percent) than yes (45 percent). In the latest tally, the nos have increased by 5 points, to 52 percent while the yeses have stayed at the same level.
Among Republicans and Democrats, however, situational ethics runs the show. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said yes and 38 percent said no. Now, 45 percent say yes and 51 percent say no. Democrats present a mirror image. Back in 2002, just 41 percent said yes and 51 percent said no. Now, the corresponding figures are 53 percent and 43 percent.
Such inarguably party-fueled reversals are nothing new—go Google the ideological contortions related to changing views of pols and pundits on whether Bush’s predilection for indefinite detention is worse than Obama’s fondness for presidential kill lists if you’ve got enough Prevacid in your medicine cabinet.
To be fair, sometimes partisans really do have a Damascus Road experience and change their ways of thinking. By all accounts, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who grabbed headlines a decade ago by rechristening Congress's spuds as "freedom fries," really has scrapped his interventionist positions despite a strongly negative effect on his electability. But for the most part, reboots are little more than cynical ploys that are hard to take seriously even when they are as entertaining as postcoital pressers by fallen ministers. That includes the recent and largely unconvincing repudiation of the Patriot Act by its original sponsor, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).
More to the point, though, the virtually unyielding preference for partisanship over principle explains why regardless of which party controls the government, the surveillance state continues to grow. It’s totally different, don’t you see, when my guy is running the show!
That same dynamic also helps to explain what is arguably the single-most important political trend over the past 40, 50, or even 70 years: the rise in the percentage of voters who flatly refuse to identify with either the Republican or Democratic Party. In 2012, more voters—38 percent—called themselves independent than admitted to being Democrat (32 percent) or Republican (24 percent).
And it points to the only place from where actual relief from an ever-bigger, ever-more-intrusive surveillance state is going to come: oddball, ad hoc coalitions formed not by party apparatchiks but by rogue elements that somehow sneak into power and are buoyed by the plurality of Americans who refuse to be cowed by party politics. It is characters such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rand Paul (R-KY.), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mark Udall (D-CO.) and Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI.), Thomas Massie (R-KY.), and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) who are lobbying for more government transparency, accountability, and restraint.
This crew has virtually nothing in common other than an inspiring streak of ideological independence that mirrors the plurality of American voters. (Paul, who has co-sponsored legislation with Wyden, did not even thank the Republican Party on election night in 2012, choosing instead to thank the “Tea Party.â€) They will doubtless find themselves on different sides of the barricades when it comes to questions of taxes, regulation, and spending. But it is impossible to imagine any of them shifting their positions on ubiquitous surveillance of Americans or kill lists or torture simply based on which party controls the White House or Congress. Which, sad to say, is a relief in the current political climate. And the reason their efforts deserve not just our sincere thanks but our vocal support.
-
They are all 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.