Quantcast

Republicans Continue To Squander Taxpayer Money And Blame Obama

ProudProgressive 2011/10/19 14:29:02

Republicans Continue To Squander Taxpayer Money And Blame Obama


October 19, 2011



Any business owner knows that inventory reduction, advertising, and transportation expenses should be scaled back to avoid bankruptcy before eliminating debt collections and customer service. Republicans are fond of promoting government as a business, and in the last ten years have proven themselves to be horrible at rudimentary business acumen because they have deliberately reduced revenue while increasing spending on frivolous items such as entitlements for the oil industry, corporations, and the wealthy. It is no secret that Republicans opposes taxation and big government as a matter-of-course, and their tax-abhorrence has led to America’s economic stagnation and problems funding social programs that nearly all Americans depend on. Now, Republicans have continued their anti-tax campaign to include cutting the Internal Revenue Service’s budget for fiscal year 2012 and have left some Democrats with little choice but to go along with their ridiculous plans.



The Republican-controlled House voted earlier in the year to slash the IRS budget in what they claimed was a necessary move to save the government money. Last month, a Senate subcommittee voted to cut IRS funding for fiscal 2012 by $458.8 million; the House bill cut the IRS budget to a level that is $600 million below the fiscal 2011 level. President Obama’s deficit reduction plan called for increasing the IRS budget that would bring in an estimated $3.2 billion in additional tax revenues over 10 years. Apparently, Republicans think the country is awash in cash to be willing to let billions of dollars disappear so they could say they cut spending. Besides losing uncollected taxes, cutting the IRS budget will force the IRS to eliminate more than 4,200 full-time positions and reduce revenue collections by $4 billion annually.



On Monday, IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman sent a letter to congressional tax-writing committees that said IRS budget cuts would sap revenue collections and hamper the agency’s ability to pursue identity theft, offshore tax evasion, and other fraud. Shulman said that cutting the IRS budget “will result in a direct increase to the nation’s deficit,” and especially that cutting the enforcement budget would mean “that front-line IRS staffing levels must be substantially reduced, leading to a measurable decrease of approximately $4 billion in revenue annually, or seven times the reduction in IRS budget.” Republicans cannot claim they are doing anything positive to help reduce the nation’s debt if they are willing to lose $4 billion per year to cut $600 million from the budget. It is not like there are no other areas to cut to trim the nation’s debt.



If controlling spending and deficit reduction are so precious to Republicans, there are at least two areas that can be cut immediately to save $600 million. The first area to cut is the subsidies Republicans hand out to the oil industry for no other reason than to increase their profit margin. In May, Republicans defeated attempts to end the taxpayer largesse that cost $20 billion over ten years. Democrats argued that the $20 billion could be used to pay down the nation’s deficit, and if Republicans were as serious about cutting the deficit as they claim, they would have ended the unfair entitlement the oil companies certainly do not need.



The second area Republicans could cut if they were serious about cutting the deficit is the outrageous amount of taxpayer dollars going to Israel’s military. Recently, Israel voted to raise taxes on the wealthy in their country as a means of raising revenue to pay down their national debt. Republicans will not even consider raising the wealthy’s taxes to create jobs or pay down the debt but they will hand over $3 billion annually to fund Israel’s military when they claim the country is broke and cannot afford to fund the IRS to collect $4 billion annually. Remember, the House cut the IRS budget by $600 million and if they only slashed Israel’s welfare by that amount, America collects $4 billion and saves 4,200 full-time jobs in the process. To add insult to economic injury, Israel’s $3 billion welfare payment is deposited directly with the Federal Reserve where Israel collects interest they use to repay non-guaranteed loans from the United States. It is a win-win scenario for Israel, but Americans are suffering with crumbling infrastructure, high-unemployment, and a tax agency that cannot collect money to help pay down the deficit. All the while, Republicans claim the country is broke and cannot afford to feed children, the poor and elderly Americans who are barely subsisting on their meager retirement income.



For Republicans to deliberately sabotage the economy by letting $4 billion in uncollected taxes disappear is more than bad business; it is unethical. Americans are suffering from high unemployment and economic stagnation and Republicans are purposely keeping workers unemployed. They cannot even vote on the President’s jobs bill in the House because they claim the price is too high, but they can give Israel $3 billion annually and $20 billion to the oil industry over ten years for nothing whatsoever. One would think that if Republicans were serious about the deficit, they would go to any lengths to find sources of revenue, seriously cut spending on Israel’s military, and stop giving free money to the oil industry.



Americans should be outraged that there is money being squandered just so Republicans can accuse President Obama of mishandling the economy. The President recognizes that cutting the IRS budget is ridiculous because he asked for it to be raised to collect taxes to pay down the deficit. He did not ask for the budget to be increased to feed hungry Americans or fix roads and bridges that would create jobs, so Republicans should have embraced and increased the IRS budget if they were concerned about deficit reduction. The only thing Republicans are concerned with is handing out free money to the oil industry and Israel. If Americans knew what Republicans were doing with their tax dollars, they would be incensed, but the media will never expose Republicans for giving welfare to Israel or the oil industry. In fact, the media will never expose Republicans for any of their malfeasance and that is the problem.



Republicans are anti-taxes and now they have enabled tax cheats to avoid paying their fair share by cutting the IRS budget and adding 4,200 full-time IRS agents to the ranks of the unemployed. It is beginning to look as if there is nothing Republicans will do to help the economy, create jobs, or help reduce the deficit. Apparently, America is not broke, but by the time the GOP is finished the country will be bankrupt; but at least Israel and the oil industry will be solvent because America continues to hand them free money.

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/en/republicans-taxpaye...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Carol 2011/10/19 21:14:28
    Carol
    +3
    Thats what Republicans do best, screw things up and then blame someone else.
  • Ringer 2011/10/19 21:04:19
    Ringer
    Anyone who thinks the Republicans are to blame entirely is less than ignorant, they are maliciously spreading disinformation.
  • Steve J~PWCM~JLA 2011/10/19 20:10:14
    Steve J~PWCM~JLA
    2011 estimate 2,173,700 3,818,819 ...


    So, if we are talking expenditures of $3.819 T and a potential savings of $5B, that would be a savings of 0.0013092432573972.

    Not even a fly's poop.

    But let's look at it from the deficit perspective. That would be $5B divided by $1.645T.

    0.0030395136778116 or 0.03%.

    Um, not much to get excited about. Plus that would be A 100% CUT OF THOSE PROGRAMS.
  • LesWaggoner BN 1 2011/10/19 19:58:27
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +1
    Blaming either the Democrats or the Republicans for the sorry state of the economy is nothing more than hocus-pocus and misdirection. Both sides are responsible and can be demonstrated by looking at the debt to GDP ratio from 1946 to the present. US Federal Debt 1940-2016
    In 1946, the debt to GDP stood at 121.96% and at 31.82% in 1981 with Carters last budget. Every administration during those years managed to reduce the debt to GDP by an average of 2.5% per year.

    The policy of supply side economics initiated by the Reagan administration reversed that downward trend despite a growing economy as indicated in the table displayed using the link above. However, blaming the Reagan administration is a fallacy since the congress was under Democratic control during those years and approved the primary mantra of supply side by cutting taxes for the wealthy in the misguided belief that the wealthy could drive the economy by investing that gift with greater investment in the American economy. Between 1981 and 1995, while supply side was in effect and Democrats in control of congress, the debt to GDP grew by 34.54% to 66.36% despite a growing economy.

    During the Clinton administration, with Republicans in control of congress after 1995, the debt to GDP was again on a downward trend endi...












    Blaming either the Democrats or the Republicans for the sorry state of the economy is nothing more than hocus-pocus and misdirection. Both sides are responsible and can be demonstrated by looking at the debt to GDP ratio from 1946 to the present. US Federal Debt 1940-2016
    In 1946, the debt to GDP stood at 121.96% and at 31.82% in 1981 with Carters last budget. Every administration during those years managed to reduce the debt to GDP by an average of 2.5% per year.

    The policy of supply side economics initiated by the Reagan administration reversed that downward trend despite a growing economy as indicated in the table displayed using the link above. However, blaming the Reagan administration is a fallacy since the congress was under Democratic control during those years and approved the primary mantra of supply side by cutting taxes for the wealthy in the misguided belief that the wealthy could drive the economy by investing that gift with greater investment in the American economy. Between 1981 and 1995, while supply side was in effect and Democrats in control of congress, the debt to GDP grew by 34.54% to 66.36% despite a growing economy.

    During the Clinton administration, with Republicans in control of congress after 1995, the debt to GDP was again on a downward trend ending with a reduction of 9.89% to 56.47% with Clinton’s last budget in 2001.

    The George W. Bush administration again resorted to supply side economics with the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and by 2009, Bush's last budget the debt to GDP had risen by 28.27% to 84.74% with a mix of Democratic and Republican control of congress.
    Other misdirected political decisions after 2001 contributed to the current economic crisis such as:
    1 ~ Letting decision makers in the financial industry put the screws to investors and homebuyers.
    2 ~ Initiating two wars without funding them.
    3 ~ Misdirected bailout programs without oversight.
    4 ~ Allowing the Federal Reserve to create QE1 and QE2, which in effect devalued the dollar by some 20% thus adding to inflation.

    While there is no doubt that budget cuts and tax reform are necessary, anyone who expects that the current economic malaise will be corrected without additional government spending has a woefully inadequate grasp of economics.

    Obama's American Jobs Act proposal is a step in the right direction. It contains an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes, worth $240 billion, under which the tax paid by employees would be cut in half through 2012. Smaller businesses would also get a cut in their payroll taxes, as well as a tax holiday for hiring new employees totaling $167 billion. The plan also provides $140 billion for infrastructure improvement that has always benefitted commerce.

    There is little possibility of the proposal being passed by the House due to a minority who are insisting that no new income to the federal government will be provided.
    (more)
  • Steve J... LesWagg... 2011/10/19 20:16:58
    Steve J~PWCM~JLA
    One cannot blame supply side economics because receipts as a percentage of GDP has been fairly consistent since Reagan. Incidentally, spending until 2004 got progressively less and less of the GDP only accelerating to over 25% in 2009.

    So in truth the spending is the problem, first by the Republicans and then ramped up by the Dems.

    Perhaps a checkbook modification, like the Tea Party suggests, is in order.
  • LesWagg... Steve J... 2011/10/19 23:26:15
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    +1
    Let's look at this in practical terms.
    From 1950 through 1981 the average spending to GDP was 18.71% ~ demand side
    From 1982 through 1995 the average spending to GDP was 21.62% ~ Supply side
    From 1996 through 2001 the average spending to GDP was 18.81% ~ demand side
    From 2002 through 2009 the average spending to GDP was 20.40% ~ Supply side
    George Bush's last budget was 10.68% higher vs GDP that the budget in 1951 and Obama's are calculated to average 9.37% higher, through 2013, as a percentage of GDP. These figures are insane.

    The difference in percentage may seem miniscule but the difference in debt dollars is huge.

    I think there is an answer to the entire issue. Instead of the debt ceiling being set as a dollar amount, that must be approved by congress, it should be set as a percent of GDP which cannot be exceded by law. I believe that it should be set at 18% of GDP.

    Libertarians would see a limit to government interference, conservatives would see a limit to spending and the progressives would have to live within the confines of that limit.
    The ONLY exception to that limit would be in a case of the U.S. being under attack by ANOTHER NATION when a military buildup would be required. As a matter of practicality FEMA would have to be able to set aside a "rainy day...

    Let's look at this in practical terms.
    From 1950 through 1981 the average spending to GDP was 18.71% ~ demand side
    From 1982 through 1995 the average spending to GDP was 21.62% ~ Supply side
    From 1996 through 2001 the average spending to GDP was 18.81% ~ demand side
    From 2002 through 2009 the average spending to GDP was 20.40% ~ Supply side
    George Bush's last budget was 10.68% higher vs GDP that the budget in 1951 and Obama's are calculated to average 9.37% higher, through 2013, as a percentage of GDP. These figures are insane.

    The difference in percentage may seem miniscule but the difference in debt dollars is huge.

    I think there is an answer to the entire issue. Instead of the debt ceiling being set as a dollar amount, that must be approved by congress, it should be set as a percent of GDP which cannot be exceded by law. I believe that it should be set at 18% of GDP.

    Libertarians would see a limit to government interference, conservatives would see a limit to spending and the progressives would have to live within the confines of that limit.
    The ONLY exception to that limit would be in a case of the U.S. being under attack by ANOTHER NATION when a military buildup would be required. As a matter of practicality FEMA would have to be able to set aside a "rainy day fund" within the confines of that 18% to assist in case of any disaster or be eliminated as the useless agency that it has proved to be thus far.
    .
    Whether it takes an amendment to the Constitution or not I am unsure but there has to be some way to force the issue.
    (more)
  • Steve J... LesWagg... 2011/10/20 14:15:10
    Steve J~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    But your Demand and supply don't fit with your definition of supply side economics. Reagan vastly increased to catch up the unfunded repair and maintenance of the military. It was also a calculated bet that it would destabilize the USSR. It did, so Clinton was able to enjoy and ratcheting down as a percentage of GDP while still maintaining the level.

    Reagan had three demons to fight. The USSR, inflation and unemployment.

    Today there is two. Terrorism and unemployment.

    It seems that the prescription that Jimmy Carter choose is the one that the 0 is trying. Will that trigger hyper inflation? Probably at some point in time the huge deficits will come home to roust. So far, the US is seen, for whatever reason, as the quality place to be.

    We as a country have snookered the world so many times that it is a wonder why people invest here.

    Think of the bubbles the world has lost money to us. R/E twice, Silver, now Gold and T Bills.
  • Steve J... LesWagg... 2011/10/20 14:17:31
    Steve J~PWCM~JLA
    BTW, I like the 18% rule. It should only be exceeded in war time and time of national disaster of a very, very large magnitude.

    We have many agencies that are worthless, including FEMA.
  • Guru_T_Firefly 2011/10/19 18:20:51
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +5
    You have to remember that their two favorite mantras are "Do as we say, not as we do," and "We'll do anything (even destroy the country) to make President Obama a one-term president!"
  • dallasjoe 2011/10/19 17:26:06
    dallasjoe
    +2
    Remeber that is 3 Billion a Yr every year and do not forget the 150 Million for renting a radio tower in Israel
  • Jimbo 2011/10/19 16:32:56
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2011/10/19 16:30:58
  • big bobber 2011/10/19 16:22:25
  • Glfer65 big bobber 2011/10/19 16:31:02
    Glfer65
    +7
    Just in, the independent study of Cain's 9-9-9 tax proposal actually increases taxes on 84% of the population earning income. Nearly all the middle class would be hit with a massive increase and those making less than $20,000 would be hit with a 950% increase in their taxes.

    And the wealthy (wait for it) gets another break in their taxes again! Tell me how does that sound for a GOP candidate touting a new tax plan? No matter where we try to fix the tax system there is a tax increase.

    It is in Obama's jobs bill and in Cain's 9-9-9 plan so why can't we get all of them to spread the tax burden evenly on ANYONE who earns an income? Simple, the wealthy TELL them how to draw up the plan so THEY benefit from it and the REST get screwed in the pooch.

    Hope you are happy with the GOP because they are in it to make the wealthy richer!
  • luvguins big bobber 2011/10/19 16:58:40
    luvguins
    +7
    Obama squandered nothing, The Congress did. They appropriate all money, and the porkage added by both parties. The GOP took credit for the stimulus dough that came to their districts too. Perry balanced his budget with it, and then they all have to say it failed completely. Their grassroots people must be fed up with them as they are not donating to their re-election campaigns.
  • luvguins 2011/10/19 15:56:19
    luvguins
    +8
    The Republicans apparently have never been very good at math as this post illustrates, or they are Neo Robin Hoods in reverse pimping the rich while robbing the poor. This sure looks like penny wise, pound foolish.
  • whitewu... luvguins 2011/10/19 16:33:20
  • luvguins whitewu... 2011/10/19 16:46:45
    luvguins
    +6
    Yep, you fail math too. There are 308 million men, women, and children in the USA by the last census. Um, that would be $1.79 for each. Yes, you are clearly Republican, wolf. LOL.
    Woof, WOOF!
  • whitewu... luvguins 2011/10/19 18:34:51
  • luvguins whitewu... 2011/10/19 18:59:47
    luvguins
    +5
    It isn't 2 million for each of 308 million people. That would be trillions, and you are griping about spending? BARK.
  • IlliniRob luvguins 2011/10/19 19:19:13
  • Jimbo whitewu... 2011/10/19 17:39:07
    Jimbo
    +7
    What do you call 20 billion unaccounted for in Iraq, peanuts? P.S. there are 300 million in the USA. Math is not a conservatives strong suit, 19.8% of GDP spending minus 14.8% of GDP in revenue is not a balanced budget, it is a minus 5% of GDP deficit.
  • whitewu... Jimbo 2011/10/19 18:36:09
  • Risk 2011/10/19 15:39:56
    Risk
    +6
    Another BS article following the path of the impotent POTUS to blame everyone and everything except the people in charge, never accept responsibility for yourself always play the Blame card or the Race card this is the Liberal way to govern !
  • USAISME 2011/10/19 15:30:32
    USAISME
    +3
    Well, if the Repubs are handing out money to big oil and other industry to prop them up and keep people working, what do you call Obama's one trillion dollar stimulous package? What would you call his most recent "jobs bill" proposal for appr. 450 billion that will only put union people to work on our roads, bridges and union teachers back in the classrooms? What do we call Obama's blatant refusal to listen when told not to allow a loan for Solyndra and other companies that he loaned money to anyway? It's amazing how such an arrogant, narcissistic idividual like Obama can thumb his nose right at the very people who voted him into office by blowing your tax dollars like a hoard of bankers with gambling problems doing Las Vegas. We will now likely be heavily involved in 4 conflicts and the truth about Obamacare is coming out. He is busy running all over the country in campaign mode and people like myself have been scraping and begging for jobs. He listens to nobody. It is his way or the highway. The Obama administration is the greatest reason why bipartisanship is almost non-existent and this country is gridlocked. I'm beginning to believe by his bullishness and arrogance that this is the way he wants it.
  • luvguins USAISME 2011/10/19 15:51:02
  • whitewu... luvguins 2011/10/19 16:35:45
  • luvguins whitewu... 2011/10/19 17:31:07
    luvguins
    +6
    Waste? They are still paying on Bush's credit card with interest added monthly for 2 costly wars, and Medicare D.
  • whitewu... luvguins 2011/10/19 18:36:51 (edited)
  • findthe... whitewu... 2011/10/19 19:56:12
    findthelight2000
    +3
    If you really look into it, Republicans are always the big spenders. The only reason Obama seems to be spending more is because the Republicans are filibustering everything, and forcing us to continue with the Bush (tax cuts for the rich) extreme spending - yes..., tax cuts are SPENDING!
  • USAISME luvguins 2011/10/19 16:36:44
  • luvguins USAISME 2011/10/19 17:33:42
  • Jimbo USAISME 2011/10/19 17:44:17
    Jimbo
    +6
    Like a cyborg one is embedded in the back of your head registering full BS power on the meter.
  • Jimbo USAISME 2011/10/19 17:41:46
    Jimbo
    +7
    Progress away from a negative GDP. State job funding dropped GDP growth down losing 250,000 jobs last summer, shellackers cutting another 250,000 state jobs reduced GDP growth further.
    250000 jobs summer shellackers cutting 250000 jobs reduced gdp growth
  • USAISME Jimbo 2011/10/19 19:09:11
    USAISME
    You will also notice in my first response to this post that I didn't defend the wasteful spending that was also the fault of the republicans. I don't mind calling people for what they are, but I won't sit idly by while the left blames the GOP. One has been just as bad as the other. Obama's administration has been primarily a failure where jobs are concerned. This is not the fault of of the GOP, though they share part of the blame. Though the whole world, other than China, is suffering financially right now, the extension of the problems in this country are due to Obama's policies, which includes sidling up to the unions that make up no more than 15% of this country's work force. There's the 85% of the rest of us that have to eat, also. Look at his administration's involvment with the attempt to block Boeing from branching out into South Carolina. I don't care what he's thinking, but there are Independents, Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans all out of work in that state and they have to eat, also. Now, what does 85% and 15% add up to? Well, it calculates out to 5.667 times as many potential voters that are non-union and are going to be keeping this issue in mind come November 2012. Don't think Obama has though much about this.
  • findthe... USAISME 2011/10/19 20:03:53
    findthelight2000
    +2
    Well if you are worried about jobs, it will do you no good to not vote for the only one running for president that is doing anything to create jobs. The problem is, he can do nothing unless we can get a 60% majority in both the Congress and the Senate, because Republicans do nothing without a filibuster. Now, take a look ate their job creation record..., they've had low taxes for the so-called "job creators" for the last 10 years, and they have less regulation than ever before - that is still their "jobs solution". Now the real question for you Republican supporters to consider:

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
  • USAISME findthe... 2011/10/21 14:15:16
    USAISME
    Looks like Obama is providing job placement in other countries with our stimulus money. Been watching TV lately? Drilling for oil in South America and making electric cars in another foreign country, promoted with the stimulous money we have to pay back.......

    SO, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
  • mich52 2011/10/19 15:23:07
  • big bobber mich52 2011/10/19 16:23:25
  • Fannie 2011/10/19 15:11:37
    Fannie
    +5
    Yes they do and will continue to, and they refuse to put any blame on Bush who created this mess.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 19:01:35

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals