Obama Administration Spending Recklessly

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by onalandline, May 13, 2014.

  1. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Obama’s IRS spends nearly $100 million on office furniture:

    The IRS has spent $96.5 million on office furniture under the Obama administration and is now claiming it has insufficient funding to adequately serve taxpayers.

    Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the House two weeks ago about the IRS’ need for additional funding for the upcoming fiscal year. The IRS is currently seeking an increase of $1.2 billion—a 7 percent raise over its FY 2014 $11.29 billion budget. It would bring the agency’s FY 2015 budget to $12.48 billion.

    A review of contracts by the Washington Free Beacon shows the IRS in the past five fiscal years has spent $96.5 million refurbishing IRS offices across the country. Those contracts include fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

    That amount already exceeds what the agency spent during the entire eight years under President George W. Bush, fiscal years 2002 through 2009.

    The purchases during the current administration show contracts are for various amounts. They range from several millions to hundreds of thousands of dollars for each agency office.

    More...
     
  2. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely nothing in the article demonstrates the spending is reckless.
     
  3. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's what the Obama Administration has been thinking all along.
     
  4. ConservativeJuda

    ConservativeJuda New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was an example, that is one of the thousand examples of way Washington Bureaucrats live a Rich and Wealthy Life, while spending little on the American People.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well If that is the best example anyone can find I think we can safely assume there really isn't a problem.
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the nation is in debt, with deficit budgets forecast for years to come, why do you believe non-essential spending is not reckless?
     
  7. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you have an example of reckless spending?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Why do you argue against balancing the budgets, then?
     
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never argued against balancing budgets??
     
  9. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm getting at your statements of support for things that would increase deficits, likely without you knowing they'd increase deficits.

    Here's an example: the stimulus reduced long term deficits and debt more than not spending would have, during the recession.
     
  10. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Makes no difference which programs and how much deficit spending each creates...fact is Obama in the past, and forecasted years into the future, has the government using deficit spending as SOP...this can only be rooted in politics and greed, both of which are detrimental to the USA...
     
  11. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean, like your opposition to increasing taxes and/or tax rates on top income and capital gains earners, contributing to the deficits and the greed factor?
     
  12. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Talking about the wealthy solving everyone else's problems in 100% political BS. They already pay 85% of the federal income tax and that's enough! How about focusing on the tens of millions of Americans who demand more government than they are willing to fund? If you live in the USA...then pay your way...
     
  13. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, you don't mind if deficits rise and economic growth is hampered? Got it.
     
  14. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Obamacare website.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deficits are out of control spending. Deficits are created when we refuse to increase taxes, lower spending, or some of both. How much taxation the wealthy pay has no bearing on how much Congress and the President are going to spend. I'll bet a week's worth of donuts that Congress and the President will spend whatever they wish no matter what the tax revenues might be...therefore....IMO, deficits are a spending problem...
     
  16. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reckless, how?
     
  17. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or, out of control tax cutting. Or, lost revenues because the right wing wants to try their hand at bubble economics again.

    Or, you have a shock to the economy and people are out of work, and profits are down.

    Your opinion isn't rooted in reality. Go back to Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and farther, and you see relatively balanced budgets from Democratic Presidents. Why? Because people are working and adding to revenues and not drawing on the government for help from a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor labor market; taxes are mostly covering expenses, and spending isn't out of control. Flip it to Republicans, and the apple cart gets upset.

    And, there is spending that helps the economy grow, like on infrastructure, education, and job creation, that's worth the deficits, because it will pay for itself.

    But, if you'd rather have deficits for the linger term, have at it.
     
  18. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hundreds of millions of dollars to get a half-ass site up and running. Any business would be chastised by its stock holders if they spent that much on mediocrity.
     
  19. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Comparisons? And seeing the overall success of the ACA, did it really matter? Once the site was up and running, people got insured and found better insurance policies.
     
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no tax cutting? BTW; when Obama and Congress decide to do more deficit spending, at that very moment they know precisely the tax revenues, therefore it is their 'spending' which is creating deficits.

    You will never solve a single issue when always invoking politics.

    Government should be nothing else other than a consumer to private enterprise. Government should not impact the economy or decide who is out of work or what profits might be?

    It's impossible to go backwards? You can only deal with the moment and the future...actually just the future. Obama and this Congress have deficit budgets every year and are forecasting deficit budgets for years to come...all of this when there are no national emergencies! Therefore deficit spending has become SOP which is total greed and political BS.

    Obama and this Congress do not have the balls to ask Americans to fund the government which they demand. This is self-serving greed and political BS...
     
  21. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course it matters. Any private company would have been bankrupt, or the board of directors would have fired the leadership. The delusion continues.
     
  22. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's been plenty of tax cutting over the past thirty+ years. And it's been a failure by not seeing job creation and seeing deficits rise. We've hit the other end of the Laffer Curve, even if Laffer won't admit it.

    first! small deficits don't matter in times when there is close to full employment. It's taken care of by rising GDP and inflation. But, the biggest cause of deficits and debt in the past thirty years has been either tax cuts, or recessions, or both.

    Sure you can, when you see patterns of how one party pushes for one approach to economics and budgets, and sees the result as failure, like the GOP has. And then look at the Democrats and see the economy is generally better, with smaller deficits, and occasional surpluses. That's just simply knowing your history (in this case, economic history) and seeing that low wage, low tax, low opportunity, large deficit, right wing economics doesn't work. Why wouldn't you want to hold politicians accountable? Shouldn't you want to logically want to look at the results between different economic policies and want to elect the ones who promote better policies, and reject those who foster failure? The two parties take different approaches. And results show one party to be generally better than the other. But you have to know your history to get it.

    Government has a Constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare of the US. That means providing opportunities for wealth creation, generally, not government creating wealth.

    I'm not quite sure what your question is getting at. But every government throughout history effects the economy to one degree or another. Generally, Keynesian economic policies leave Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is left to do its work unimpressed. But occasionally, it needs a slight helping hand to help the economy grow.

    What?

    If you don't know your past, your doomed to repeat it. And the past keeps showing the right wingers to be a failure at economics. And again, we don't need a perfectly balanced budget every year. We can pay down debt as a percentage of GDP just by growing GDP. Inflation reduces the debt automatically with time. And the Bush/GOP housing bubble is having effects for years later, because the GOP's answer was to block job creation and economic recovery.

    It's less that than the ones who should have taxes raised on them to fund their corporate welfare have a (*)(*)(*)(*)-ton of money to throw at congresscritters to keep it from happening.
     
  23. Shanty

    Shanty New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Our government isn't a business, and voters are the board of directors.

    Besides, in the private sector, a CEO fails and they get a bonus and a golden parachute.
     
  24. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is your justification of reckless over-spending?
     
  25. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're quite politically biased which encourages a closed mind. All forms of personal polarization don't lend themselves to constructive problem solving.

    As Obama spends billion$ no matter there are no national emergencies, no matter that there are deficit budgets for years to come, no matter the mounting national debt...this is reckless spending...
     

Share This Page