Growth: Economy v debt

[Gimmesometruth]

See: My very next line, which you quoted and (ineffectively) responded to:

The law does not need to say so; the government chooses to pass the laws that mandtate that spenidng, and so the government chooses to spend the money.
Congress passed that law. Obama signed it. Thus, they chose to spend it


Irrelevant to my point, which you leave unaddressed.

Nothing --requires-- Congress to pass laws that mandate spending on SocSec or medicare or any of the other mandatory spending programs; congres --chooses-- to do so.
Thus, the spending, all of it, is voluntary.

Disagree? Cite the Constitutional/legal requirement for Congress to pass legislation that mandates spending on, say, SocSec, and for the President to sign it.
Hint: You cannot.

And so, again:
Clearly, my understanding far outpaces yours.

It is a specious argument at best, you are assuming a separation of the legislators from the constituents, as if they are acting wholly and completely independent, not to mention that they cannot in fact "volunteer" to spend constituent tax dollars. Once statutory legislation is passed, there is not any "voluntary" anything, it is mandated. It is nothing more that semantic hocus-pocus, totally devoid of any meaning, but like I said, libertarians operate in an alternative universe.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The issue here is FY2009 spending and iys positive the economy.

Um....what?

If you blame Bush for the FY2009 deficit, then you have to give him crefit for the positive effects of the 2009 spendng;

Um...I already did, I said that TARP saved the US/World credit market.......but AGAIN, his policies also created the need to save the credit market.

If you want to give Obama credit for the positive efefcts of the FY2009 spending, you have to blame him for the deficit.
There's no intellectually honest way around it.

Again, his portion of the BUDGET was a very small fraction of the SPENDING, whereas the DEFICIT was a result of decreased REVENUE....due to the Bush RECESSION, which CANNOT be blamed on President Obama.

You dliberately missed the "inept" part.

This is funny, President Obama continued on with extended TARP spending (which you apparently agree with), increased the auto bailouts (which you approve of when Bush did the same), reduced taxes and extended the Bush taxes (one has to assume you approve of), pushed through the mentioned stimulus (mostly the tax cuts plus UI benefit extensions and spending for police, fire, and education), all of which stabilized the economy, caused GDP to "get back on track", created new stock market highs, stopped the increasing rates of unemployment.....but somehow it gets labeled as "inept"?

Weird!

Don't sidestep what I said -- If everything were the same today, save that McCain was in office.
Be honest, even if only to yourself.

How could it BE THE SAME when McCain would NOT have implemented said programs? You ignore this basic point.....and I am not honest?

Get a grip.

 

[H. Lee White]

It is a specious argument at best,...

Nope. The government chooses to pass the laws that mandate the spending, and the President chooses to sign them -- both of which are active, positive choices that must be made for the money to be spent.

you are assuming a separation of the legislators from the constituents,

YOU are trying to argue that 'because the people want the money to be spent, the spending is mandatory', which is, well, not true.

Once statutory legislation is passed...

The passage of which is voluntary, thusly negating everything you said beyond that point.

What you fail to realize is the difference between discretionay and non-discretionary spending:
Discretionary spending is on-budget, with specific amounts allocated by law
"Mandarory spending" is off-budget, with specific outlays allocated by law, paid out regardless of available revenue so long as the specified requirements are met.
BOTH kinds of spending require the passage of a law that allows for the spending, and as such, both are voluntary.

Disagree? Cite the Constitutional/legal requirement for Congress to pass legislation that mandates spending on, say, SocSec, and for the President to sign it.
Hint: You cannot.

As I said: I clearly have a sigificantly better handle on this than you.

 

[H. Lee White]

Um....what?
Um...I already did, I said that TARP saved the US/World credit market.......but AGAIN, his policies also created the need to save the credit market.
Again, his portion of the BUDGET was a very small fraction of the SPENDING, whereas the DEFICIT was a result of decreased REVENUE....due to the Bush RECESSION, which CANNOT be blamed on President Obama.

You want it both ways. Doesnt work that way. Sorry.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Nope. The government chooses to pass the laws that mandate the spending, and the President chooses to sign them -- both of which are active, positive choices that must be made for the money to be spent.


YOU are trying to argue that 'because the people want the money to be spent, the spending is mandatory', which is, well, not true.


The passage of which is voluntary, thusly negating everything you said beyond that point.

What you fail to realize is the difference between discretionay and non-discretionary spending:
Discretionary spending on-budget spending, with specific amounts allocated by law
"Mandarory spending" is off-budget spending, with specific outlways allovated by law, paid out regardless of available revenue.
BOTH kinds of spending require the passage of a law that allows for the spending, and as such, both are voluntary.

Disagree? Cite the Constitutional/legal requirement for Congress to pass legislation that mandates spending on, say, SocSec, and for the President to sign it.
Hint: You cannot.

As I said: I clearly have a sigificantly better handle on this than you.

Beyond the inability to spell or construct a proper sentence or paragraph, your "logic" still utterly fails. By your argument, ANY spending by govt is "voluntary" (which is totally subjective and open to multiple, interpretative, definitions), but since the very existence of any govt does require some amount of spending for said govt to operate, your whole argument collapses in on itself. If a group of people decide to form a govt, taxation in some form must exist for that govt to exist, by it's very nature and logic, some amount of spending is mandatory for any govt to exist in any meaningful matter. There is no "free lunch", govt does not exist on air. This is such a fundamental error with the libertarian mindset/mentality.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You want it both ways. Doesnt work that way. Sorry.

When it comes to the credit market collapse, you ABSOLUTELY refuse to accept the idea of CAUSE AND EFFECT. Bush's TARP only propped up part of the collapse, his policies were the major (if not all of the) reason for the collapse.

How you can argue in any manner that the collapse or resulting major damage is the responsibility of President Obama is beyond me....especially since you cannot put it into words.

 

[H. Lee White]

Beyond the inability to spell or construct a proper sentence or paragraph

Just so you know: As soon as you turn into a grammar/typo nazi, you've admitted you cannot counter someone's argument.

your "logic" still utterly fails.

Not that you can show, as I shall thusly illustrate.

By your argument, ANY spending by govt is "voluntary"

Given that --all-- spending requires the passage of legislation into law, something that neither Conmgress nor the President is required to approve, it is impossible to argue otherwise.

but since the very existence of any govt does require some amount of spending for said govt to operate, your whole argument collapses in on itself.

Irony:
The funds for governmental operations fall under discretionary spending.

There is not a SINGLE dollar spent by the government that is spend because it HAS to be. You cannot point out a single instance of spending that is mandated by anything other than legislation, the passage of which is a choice made by congress and the President.

If a group of people decide to form a govt, taxation in someform must exist for that govt to exist

Not at all so. There are all kinds of ways to fund agovernment other than taxation, and nothing necessitates that a government spend money.

All money is spent pursuant to legislation. All legslation requires an active choice to pass into law. Thus, all spending is by choice.
No way around it.

 

[Rainman05]

BTW those numbers should be in billions $15,606T is 15 quadrillion should be $15,606B

Ok, lets do some arithmetic. The debt is Cumulative debt, and the numbers are a little off (about 1 trillion higher). That means the debt is acured over 3 years. So the annual deb it (we'll take your numbers) ($15,856B - $10626B)/3years = $1,743B

So Debt is $1,743B per year

GDP is $15,606B - $13,923B = $1,683B per year

So it's about even (less debt if you take the non-bias numbers). Two things to keep in mind. One, economic growth is more lasting than debt especially at only the lower 1% interest, Two, he inherited a collapsing economy. Also Bush spent at about the same rate by % growth while shrinking the economy.

Typical Fox flat out lying to idiots.

Excuse me, what?

It's trillions dude. 1T = 1000B. So its 1683 billions, and that is the value by which the GDP of the country has risen to its new value over Obama's term in office. The US is 16 tril in debt, so 16000 bil dollars in debt. It has a GDP of 15tril = 15000 bil.

Obama spends 10.5 bil dollars every single day. I mean it. That's the cost of government. over 10bil $/day. How do you measure it? Obama's budget is 3.8trillion dollars and has stayed around that number for all his time in office. The federal revenue is about 2.2-2.4 (it has decreased over the years). Therefore, the debt he adds every year was between 1.4 to 1.6 trillion dollars.
If you divide 3.8trils = 3800billions to the number of days, which is 365... or lets put it it 364, simple math tells you that because 380> 365, the number resulted by diving those numbers will get you a value >1. Which translates in over 10 bil.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Irony:
The funds for governmental operations fall under discretionary spending.

Discretionary, meaning available to be spent, but the important point, is that it is spent and NOT withheld.

There is not a SINGLE dollar spent by the government that is spend because it HAS to be.

Dude, I already showed for govt to exist, monies have to be spent.....otherwise you would be talking about voluntary service.

You cannot point out a single instance of spending that is mandated by anything other than legislation, the passage of which is a choice made by congress and the President. Not at all so. There are all kinds of ways to fund agovernment other than taxation, and nothing necessitates that a government spend money.All money is spent pursuant to legislation. All legslation requires an active choice to pass into law. Thus, all spending is by choice.
No way around it.

Oh , but I can.....it is called "the Taxing and Spending Clause", Article One of the Constitution, where the federal govt is REQUIRED to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE, which by narrow or broad interpretation, implicitly causes spending.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

what makes that argument more complex, though, is this :

View attachment 67134633

the economy was tanking at pre-depression levels when he took office. put simply, waiting for businesses to start hiring again on their own was not an option, and if he hadn't spent the money, that would be the main criticism in this election cycle. add in two wars that we didn't increase taxes to pay for, an absolute refusal by the opposition to even consider raising taxes, and a preexisting debt and deficit, and you basically have a situation that's almost untenable. the fact that we're not in a depression right now is somewhat astounding.

my main criticism of Obama is that he couldn't get enough stimulus passed, and he didn't make a good enough case for it.

Only... what you leave out is this...


The bleak US Fiscal situation
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
$16T in debt, 105% of our GDP... $5.4T of that added under this administration... with a running $1.2T deficit... Spending $3.6T, collecting $2.4T (spending nearly 60% over budget)... The only ever credit rating downgrade in US history... $84T in unfunded liabilities…

The awful employment figures
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
8.1% unemployment (43 months over 8%, since the president said it wouldn't go over 8% if we gave him the $800B stimulus)… 40% of those on unemployment have been on it over 27 weeks… 23M Americans unemployed/underemployed… the labor force participation rate at its lowest since Reagan’s first year in office, after a steep and unprecedented 2.3% drop since Obama took over...

The increasing costs of fuel
Historical Gas Price Charts - GasBuddy.com
Winter heating costs could rise an average 10.5% - ABC News
This week the average gasoline prices have remained stable at $3.86/gal, 2 weeks after Labor Day, when gasoline prices normally drop, they remain 6 cents higher than they were on Labor Day… Gasoline has steadily risen under this administration, more than doubling from $1.61/gal when he came in to the current $3.86/gal… Home heating prices are expected to increase by 10.5% this winter... This is going to be worse for those who rely on oil, who will see a 28% increase up to $1834 over the winter, to double what they were four years ago…

 

[BCR]

Let's see if I can get through to those of you who are unwilling to place any of the blame on bush for our current economic mess. Bush waged two was, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were very expensive, and long. One would think that logically, to pay for such mischief, government would want to INCREASE their revenue. However, Bush decided to DECREASE the government's revenue via tax cuts across the board. Combine this fiscal policy with the wars and you have a recipe for a drastically increased deficit. And the deficit grew, a lot under Bush. He was in no way fiscally responsible, he was an awful president. It's no wonder he has become "He who must not be named" amongst republicans.
What Obama has done since coming into office is totally reasonable, and what is expected of government in times of recession. The stimulus saved the economy from enter a full-blown depression. It was Keynesian polices, that virtually every president since FDR has used, that kept our economy afloat. Yes, such policy does increase the deficit but the short-run effects are too beneficial. What if Obama used Romney's fiscal policy at the start of his term. We'd be in the same boat as Greece, Spain, and even The U.K. They all practiced austerity, cutting taxes and spending. They are all still in a very anemic economy at the moment. We have already begun the recovery process. At least Obama has spent his trillions on investing in this country and it's people.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Discretionary, meaning available to be spent, but the important point, is that it is spent and NOT withheld.

That's not what discretionary means... you are becoming just as fraudulent as your buddy adamt

discretionary - definition of discretionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You could easily not spend those funds as part of that discretion, to bring down the cost of governance and/or pay a portion of them to the debt... The important point is the discretion, not the aspect of spending them... Discretionary spending is the alternative to liabilities, which have been earmarked towards something. The entitlement programs are liabilities which makes them the mandatory spending programs where they have to be spent... All other could be eliminated... although, it wouldn't make sense to... hence the discretion...

Dude, I already showed for govt to exist, monies have to be spent.....otherwise you would be talking about voluntary service.

You have not shown how monies have to be spent... You could function with an all voluntary service... That's the way the civilian militias that fought for this country's independence were formed... It's how the numerous communes within this country function... and its how the kibbutzes were organized in early Israel...

However, I think we can all agree there are basic expenses the modern democratically elected capitalist republic needs to make in order to function most efficiently... The thing that differs here is where that basic expenses aspect ends... hence the discretion, again...

Oh , but I can.....it is called "the Taxing and Spending Clause", Article One of the Constitution, where the federal govt is REQUIRED to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE, which by narrow or broad interpretation, implicitly causes spending.

Again, you're being loose with the truth... Article I doesn't require it provide for the general welfare... that's in the preamble...

In Article I it only gives the power to tax in order to pay... that is not a requirement to do it, just the responsibilty of deciding on it...

"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Let's also not forget the vague nature of the terms "common Defence" and "general Welfare"... and the application thereof...

I've seen you and others who have been ardent supporters of Obama's expenditures in the trillions, as it is to provide for the "general Welfare", yet be just as ardently against George W Bush for chosing to spend on "Two Wars", which many would say falls under providing for the "common Defense"...

You, yourself, have adamantly protested paying down the wars with debt, eventhough you're citing this very clause to justify your argument now, while in that clause, it states that the power to do so is within their right...

One might also make the case, that since the federal government is the only body which provides for that common defense, it makes that power far more pertinent... whereas the general welfare is reinforced by the independent state governments as well...


I agree to your concerns about the cost of spending on the wars... However, I cannot agree to your defense of drastically increasing spending to this "general welfare" is justified, when it's not necessarily increasing spending for the general welfare... It's been done to support liberal agendas... Take for instance the Cash for Clunkers program and the Tax Credits for the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf... Are those to promote the general welfare? Why were we spending on them, then?

Even an idiot can see that the spending increase is the problem we currently have, not revenue.... spending went from $2.7T in Bush's final year to $3.6T now... That's an increase of nearly $1T in spending... revenue has only dropped from $2.5T to $2.1T, but has since recovered to $2.3 and now $2.4T... So revenue is only down now by $100B... the $900B annual increase in expenses is to blame, not the $100B loss in revenue... It is the revenue increase that needs more close attention as to what needs to be eliminated/revised...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In Article I it only gives the power to tax in order to pay... that is not a requirement to do it, just the responsibilty of deciding on it...

"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

FFS, you post Article One, showing the taxation and spending clause, showing the requirement for providing the general welfare......and yet you claim I am not being honest that it requires govt to SPEND said collected taxes on the general welfare of the population?

Good god, it never ceases to amaze me how you have this incredible ability to totally undercut your own point while you think you are countering me.

I have no idea why, but I am so glad you repeat this habit time and again.

 

[274ina]

Would you care for me to provide you with a link?
First off... BP is a British company. What right does the US have to take the profits from BP? Also, it only made around 22B $ in 2011.

Exxon only made 41B$... not 180B$... I don't know where you got those numbers from.

2011 Was Very Good to ExxonMobil | Center for American Progress

And Walmart and Exxon Mobil are the 2 top companies in the US... and together, full profits... they get to a bit under 60B with Walmart making ~15B in profits. The rest, much lower... and lower... and lower. Don't get me wrong, it is a lot of money. It all adds up around the numbers I gave you.

And the numbers I gave are from the IRS and collaborated with other sources. The problem with memory is that it can be deceitful. Numbers get mixed up.

EDIT: You must be a die-hard socialist or commie... 80% tax rate... even the thought... it also explains your hyperbole. Bad evil companies making too much money...

I looked up the numbers just before I posted.

GROSS Profits....yahoo finance.
And BP sure seems to be profiting in the USA........or was that gulf thing really EXXONS fault.....LMAO
Profit in USA, PAY in USA.

 

[shiang]

Excuse me, what?

It's trillions dude. 1T = 1000B. So its 1683 billions, and that is the value by which the GDP of the country has risen to its new value over Obama's term in office. The US is 16 tril in debt, so 16000 bil dollars in debt. It has a GDP of 15tril = 15000 bil.

Obama spends 10.5 bil dollars every single day. I mean it. That's the cost of government. over 10bil $/day. How do you measure it? Obama's budget is 3.8trillion dollars and has stayed around that number for all his time in office. The federal revenue is about 2.2-2.4 (it has decreased over the years). Therefore, the debt he adds every year was between 1.4 to 1.6 trillion dollars.
If you divide 3.8trils = 3800billions to the number of days, which is 365... or lets put it it 364, simple math tells you that because 380> 365, the number resulted by diving those numbers will get you a value >1. Which translates in over 10 bil.

10billion/day/300million = $30/day/person, that's the cost of roads, schools, bridges, military, welfare. It's what it costs.

I don't quite see what you're trying to argue. The 16 (actually 15, they're using current GDP and future projected debt) trillion is not annual, it's the total cumulative debt.

16 is pretty close to 15, we're in a years worth of debt, and the money borrowed has seen full returns in GDP growth.


My main point is the OP and the either deceptive, or shot-in-the-brain, article writer essentially divided the economic gains by 3 by forgetting to multiply GDP by the number of years.

 

[Rainman05]

I looked up the numbers just before I posted.

GROSS Profits....yahoo finance.
And BP sure seems to be profiting in the USA........or was that gulf thing really EXXONS fault.....LMAO
Profit in USA, PAY in USA.

... are you trolling? Please provide the sources for your statements.

Also, yes, BP has made money in the US and it has paid its share of taxes in the USA on the money it made in the US. But the company profits come from many other places including South America, Europe and Asia, and it is a british company. What right does the USA have to take the profits from another company? It takes its share from the profits it makes in the USA, and no more. What is not clear... you must be a democrat sympathiser because of your distinct hatred for oil companies and companies in general. And even if the US would take ALL the profits from WHEREVER they may be made from BP, it still only adds 25bil dollars to that 600 or so billions i already posted... it still doesn't get close to the amount you said it will... they are highly inflated and have no basis.

 

[Rainman05]

10billion/day/300million = $30/day/person, that's the cost of roads, schools, bridges, military, welfare. It's what it costs.

I don't quite see what you're trying to argue. The 16 (actually 15, they're using current GDP and future projected debt) trillion is not annual, it's the total cumulative debt.

16 is pretty close to 15, we're in a years worth of debt, and the money borrowed has seen full returns in GDP growth.


My main point is the OP and the either deceptive, or shot-in-the-brain, article writer essentially divided the economic gains by 3 by forgetting to multiply GDP by the number of years.

... what I am trying to argue? Dude. I am trying to argue that obama put the country 5 trillion dollars in debt over the course of his mandate... Bush needed 2 terms to accomplish a 8 tril dollars deficit. And I am also arguing that Obama spends over 10billion dollars a day to keep the government running. This is after for 4 years he alegedly worked to close loopholes ,reduce wasteful spending and tie the belt.

16 is pretty close to 15? Dude. The US has 16 tril dollars debt and a 15 tril dollars GDP. You are over the 100% ratio between debt and GDP. I don't think you understand how much a trillion is. If you were to make 1 million dollars every single day, it would take you over 3000 years to make one trillion. 3000 YEARS.

the math is simple. You need 1100 days to make 1 billion, which is about 3 years. Right? 365*3 ~= 1100. But lets be gracious and lets call it an even 1000. This is in your favor... it means you make 1 bil dollars 100 days earlier than you normally should if you make 1 million $/day... and lets call it 3 years.
so 3 years for every 1 bil and you need 1000 bil to get to 1 trillion... which means you need 3000 years to make 1 trillion. If we were to calculate with 1100, it would take a few hundred years more. Got it? It's not peanuts dammit. Its a serious amount of ****ing money.

Also, your math is wrong. There are 116.5mil TAXPAYERS in the USA... so lets make it an even 120 mil TAXPAYERS. So it will be 10bil (per day)= 10 000 million (per day) divided by 120 mil... you roughly end up with a number bellow 100 dollars.. so about 90$/day. Every taxpayer needs to get 90$ every day to pay for everything the government does.

If you would have to pay that 90$ every single day, you would need to make 2700$/month to pay off your bills to the government. You will need to make more to be afford to buy bread, pay the mortgage on your house, pay off the credits you have... pay off the 16tril debt the US is in... pay off the power, water and all other utilities.

And I calculated this for a single individual. if you have a family, as you correctly stated... you need to pay off their share. If your wife doesn't work, you need to pay 90$ for her too. If you have a child, another 90$ for him too. Its' INSANE!

 

[Grim17]

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm REALLY getting sick and tired of the "Bush waged two wars" excuse that's peddled every single day on this forum and all over the net.

Those wars were approved by both the senate and congress on a bi-partisan basis, along with being supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. That makes those wars "America's wars" whether anyone likes it or not... The military is one of the few things laid out in the constitution that our federal government was supposed to be responsible for, so do everyone a favor and stop using it as a cheap excuse and trying to make that the centerpiece of America's debt woes because it isn't.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program already in progress.

 

[Rainman05]

Stupid me...I meant 3500$/month not 2700. Must be tired. consider this a friendly ammendment to the post i made up.

 

[H. Lee White]

Discretionary, meaning available to be spent, but the important point, is that it is spent and NOT withheld.

You said that the money HAD to be spent. If the spending is catagorized as discretionary, that's clearly not true.

Dude, I already showed for govt to exist, monies have to be spent.....otherwise you would be talking about voluntary service.

You showed no such thing, and no such thing exists - the fact that you admit there is an 'otherwise' - just one of several - proves my point.

Oh , but I can.....it is called "the Taxing and Spending Clause", Article One of the Constitution, where the federal govt is REQUIRED to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE

I suggest you read the clause - it gives the power to tax and spend that may be voluntarily exercised; it does not in any way mandate that the governmnt do either.

Want some truth? Here it is:
All spending comes from legislation
All legislation is passed into law voluntarily
Thus all spending is voluntary.
No way around it.

 

[H. Lee White]

Let's see if I can get through to those of you who are unwilling to place any of the blame on bush for our current economic mess. Bush waged two was, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were very expensive, and long. One would think that logically, to pay for such mischief, government would want to INCREASE their revenue. However, Bush decided to DECREASE the government's revenue via tax cuts across the board.

Bush cut taxes before the wars started, not after.

Combine this fiscal policy with the wars and you have a recipe for a drastically increased deficit. And the deficit grew, a lot under Bush

.
The deficit fell from $412.7B in FY2004 to $160.7B in FY2007, all thru peak spending in the wars.
Obama, on the other hand, ran $160B deficts in a single month.

He was in no way fiscally responsible, he was an awful president.

But Obama, being a Democrat, regardless of the fact that he, in less than 4 years has run up more debt that Bush did in 8 - is just ducky.
Amazing that a (D) next to your name will buy.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I suggest you read the clause - it gives the power to tax and spend that may be voluntarily exercised; it does not in any way mandate that the governmnt do either.

BS....show me where in Section 8 the phrase "may be voluntary" exists.

Hint: it does not. For the Federal Govt to carry out ANY and ALL of the MANDATED functions spelled out in Section 8, taxes ARE collected to carry out said MANDATED FUNCTIONS. I made this point previously, the very basic existence of our federal govt requires, absolutely, spending to occur. The ONLY way it could happen without spending is for all govt employees to be slaves who provide for their own existence, provide the very supplies required to carry out the mandated functions.....which is a libertarian fantasy.

The operative word is SHALL. SHALL= will, MUST. Not "may" but MUST.

****************************************

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[AdamT]

Bush cut taxes before the wars started, not after.

Incorrect. Bush cut taxes in 2001 AND in 2003. Bush signed the 2003 cuts on May 28 ... after the Afghanistan war was well under way and several months after we invaded Iraq.

 

[jonny5]

Incorrect. Bush cut taxes in 2001 AND in 2003. Bush signed the 2003 cuts on May 28 ... after the Afghanistan war was well under way and several months after we invaded Iraq.

The 2003 act only cut the cap gains tax. Everything else was just a change in the enaction dates of the 2001 act.

 

[Tettsuo]

Every penny is spent voluntarily. Not a single penny MUST be spent. Not one.

Actually, you're wrong. Our government is suppose to spend whatever money it has on what we deem it must spend it on. That's what the government is for. It's suppose to be non-profit. Do you understand? Our government is not suppose to hoard money under any circumstance unless we explicitly tell them to do so for a specific purpose (SS was suppose to be one of those purposes).