Falsely suggesting that Obama proposed taxing small businesses' revenue

[Jagger]

In claiming that "small businesses ... are putting $250,000 in revenue out there, and they're going to get impacted" under President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts on wealthy taxpayers expire, CNBC's Maria Bartiromo falsely suggested that Obama has proposed taxing small business revenue.

In fact, Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902260012?f=h_top

[Sponsored Links]

[davem]

Anything fun to chat about Fred? No elections for two years. :)

[sandbagger]

what do you expect from MediaMatters? They're a liberal mouthpiece (founded by the Clintons) very good at wordsmithing a set of cherry-picked "facts."

If you want to delude yourself that taxes aren't going up for people who work hard go ahead. Just don't come back and whine when your wallet gets a lot lighter.

[jgleason]

Come on guys, at least Jagger has moved on from the 2nd amendment issue.

[HS345]

Gee, big surprise that Jagger is cheerleading for the neo-marxist Obama administration. :rolleyes:

[bbcamp]

No discussion of the issue, just the person raising the issue?

Same old, same old.:deadhorse:deadhorse

[sandbagger]

if you mean my questioning of Media Matters, then yes. Knowing the source of the information - and any biases - is crucial in any discussion of issues.

[ddmoit]

I dismiss sources out-of-hand on occasion. I have a word for it when I do: Lazy. It can be tedious to make the argument and expose the bias; sometimes there just isn't time to do it. But, it's the only way to win the minds of others. Short of that, we're just shouting at each other.

[Davestone]

Are you saying we're shouting?hmmm has the capital feature been dismantled?..Not that i'm complaining.:D

[Albert]

it sounds like ole fred is smokin possum-poop frum the peace-pipe.

obama's carbon tax will hit everyone because it will raise all fuel prices. for everyone -- small business owners, non business owners, workers, and welfarers and anyone who uses transportation or buys anything made using energy (in uther wurds, everywon). but if all your usin is sunlite or wind it wont raise yore taxes.

now here's the kicker -- if raising taxes on evrywun during a recess-session aint bad enuff, think about whut it will do to the competitive position of america? let's see, where are you going to pewt a factory if energy is overtaxed in the u.s.? you got it, businesses will locate or relocate overseas.

so why the hail are does he want to tax everyone?

well, it would mean more tax revenews for more gummint spending...

albert

[HS345]

That's the clinker, higher tax rates don't necessarily equal higher tax revenues. In fact, more often than not, higher tax rates mean lower tax revenue.

Bottom line, republican spending bad, democrat spending good. :rolleyes:

giddyup!!!
:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse

[Albert]

i agree wiff you. iff they slap a big ole tax on all the energy you use and on your carbon footprint (whatver that is -- edna's gonna be in deep doodoo wiff all the greenhouse/outhouse gas blowin outta her backside), then the whole country may shut down. and then there will be no tax revenews.

wiff the price of energy peeples gonna be hopin for global warmin!

albert

[sandbagger]

when you tax a business you just tax consumers - businesses do not pay taxes!! Sometimes it's higher prices, sometimes fewer jobs.

[Bellsfloors]

businesses do not pay taxes!!

Actually many do. Inventory and equipment is taxed in many retail shops quarterly and/or yearly. This tax is added into the cost of the merchandise and the consumer ultimately pays for it. Thus higher cost to the consumers to pay for the higher taxes on business.

[ddclay]

OK, hopefully I can formulate my thoughts enough to express how I feel about our elected officials from the White House to the House & Senate: I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THE HARD WORKERS GETTING PENALIZED FOR BE SUCCESSFULL AND THE LAZY BEING REWARDED. :shades:

This "stimulas" package scares the you know what out of me. If "the Chosen One" wants to create jobs then why is he handing out OUR money to the Banks, to help with foreclosures? Where are the jobs there? If the money was put towards small business (the backbone of this great nation)there would be jobs.
Here's what I've noticed: people are not buying, they are scared.
Manufacturors are not manufacturing, inventory levels are in the basement.
SBA (small business administration) has NOTHING to lend. Unless you want to pay 8.25%!!! I wanted to increase my credit line, no one is lending. Even the SBA.:shrug: That is insulting. I told the local and State bureaucrat why do you guys even bother unlocking the door if you have nothing?

Stock up folks, it's may get real interesting.

[sandbagger]

uhh, Tracy, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, the business may send the check to the IRS, but if people think that is the end of it they are sorely mistaken. :corn:

[ddmoit]

When businesses are taxed, they become de facto collection agents of the IRS. It is an especially insidious tax because it is hidden. There is no way for a consumer to know how much tax is hidden in the price of a loaf of bread. The unwitting taxpayer may live under the delusion that he pays no taxes. He remains ignorant of the fact that the government is adding to the cost of everything he buys, while stealing the value of his currency at the same time.

The Mafia can only dream of such criminal enterprise.

[Bellsfloors]

that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

I know Art :) but was just clarifying to those that might think the businesses didn't pay taxes. I'm with you on the matter. People that don't understand how business is intertwined (forced unwillingly) into the taxation issues really don't understand how the taxes are secretly passed on to the consumers. There are more taxes in the business end other then just sales tax.

[sgrandjean]

when you tax a business you just tax consumers - businesses do not pay taxes!! Sometimes it's higher prices, sometimes fewer jobs.

The only businesses I can think of that cannot pass along those wonderful taxes to the consumer are in the healthcare sector. Ninety percent of the insurance companies base their reimbursement off Medicare rates. Physician offices and hospitals can bill what they choose. However, that doesn't guarantee insurance is going to pay those rates. Further, we have to 'embrace' Medicare regulations which complicate the delivery of healthcare and force many providers closer toward insolvency every year...with no hope of anything that comes close to those golden parachutes offered to the financial and automotive sectors of late.

Cheers.

[ddmoit]

I can hardly think of a more screwed up industry, Scott. Through regulation, the actual customers have been removed from concern over cost. And the actual payers are removed from any concern of quality. They have gouged out the eyes of the free market.

[sandbagger]

what Dan said. :tup1: The problem with healthcare, in fact, is that it is NOT run like a business. and if the Dems have their way, that problem will get much, much worse.

[Jagger]

VERY FEW SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD FACE TAX INCREASES
UNDER PRESIDENT'S BUDGET


Vast Majority Would Benefit from Other Key Proposals

Some critics of the President’s budget charge that his proposals to roll back tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes over $250,000 would harm small businesses. In fact, only 8.9 percent of people with any small business income have incomes of over $250,000 and, thus, would even potentially be affected by these provisions. And that figure substantially overstates the percentage of people with small business income who would actually be affected by these provisions; for example, only 1.9 percent of people with such income currently are in a tax bracket with a rate higher than 28 percent. As a result, the percentage of people with small business income who would be affected by proposals to increase the top two tax rates or limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent of deductible expenses would be extremely small.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-28-09tax.htm

[HS345]

In fact, only 8.9 percent of people with any small business income have incomes of over $250,000 and, thus, would even potentially be affected by these provisions.
Gee Fred, that contradicts the info you linked to in your OP, where Liberal Media is the only thing that Matters stated, only 2 percent of small businesses would be affected.

In either case, how could it be a good thing for ANY small business to be penalized for success in these economic times?

The truth of the matter is, the number of small business affected by Obama's tax hikes will likely be much larger. And that's before you factor in the affect of other capital destroying policy such as Cap and trade.

And the beat goes on..............:shake:

[Bellsfloors]

hmmm... Don't small businesses purchase much of their products and materials through big businesses? :suspect: :shades:

[ddmoit]

I'm willing to presume that 8.9% statistic is correct. But there is another statistic that I would be more interested in. What percentage of US jobs are created by the businesses that this 8.9% represents? I don't know what it is, but I bet it is pretty large. Those are the jobs that stand to be lost when these businesses are burdened by a larger tax load.

There's no doubt that government has the power to redistribute wealth. But they cannot create additional wealth. Every time wealth is taken from the hands that create it, the incentive to create more is reduced. The result of redistributing wealth is that there is always less wealth to redistribute.

We may all eventually have the same sized piece of pie - but it will be a much smaller pie to start with.:(

[Jagger]

Only 1.9 percent of people with small business income are currently in a tax bracket with a rate higher than 28 percent. As a result, the percentage of people with small business income who would be affected by increases in the top two tax rates would be extremely small.

[dbol]

Every time wealth is taken from the hands that create it, the incentive to create more is reduced
This should be the end of the thread you just can't argue this point plain and simple.

[Jagger]

How much and where exactly should we cut military spending?

[Jagger]

Every time wealth is taken from the hands that create it, the incentive to create more is reduced. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that.

[Jagger]

The result of redistributing wealth is that there is always less wealth to redistribute. Redistributing wealth from taxpayers to those who built the interstate highway system in the 1950's created infrastructure that facilitated the production of more wealth.

[Rob Z]

posted by Jagger


Quote:
Every time wealth is taken from the hands that create it, the incentive to create more is reduced.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support that.
__________________
Fred






Fred,

There is at least one data point to support that idea...me and my business. I know what would happen to my income if I increased the size of my business, took more risks, worked harder, hired more people, did more volume, and generally increased the scope of what we do. And, I know what would happen, percentage-wise, to the income taxes that I would pay. It doesn't take extensive modeling to realize, for me, the extra work/stress/risk/etc IS NOT worth the increase in the amount of money taken from me by the governement for others' use.

At some point, it becomes a real disincentive when one realizes that every dollor earned is going to be cut by at least 50% so that the government can do its work.

[HS345]

Quote:
Dan said: Every time wealth is taken from the hands that create it, the incentive to create more is reduced.

Doug responded: This should be the end of the thread you just can't argue this point plain and simple.

Edit.
I originally misquoted Doug, and said: Doug, that's just plain silly. :wtf:

Of course taking money from the producers of this country creates less incentive to produce. Perhaps you would care to explain why, in your opinion, that is not the case.

Let the record show I misquoted Doug, and I am an idjet. :gerg::whip:

Sorry Doug, I am not feeling well. I misunderstood. :o

[jgleason]

Grg,
I think you mean Fred, not Doug.

[Rob Z]

Thousands of years of "human nature" say this true, as well. There aren't many that thrive under a system where the more they earn the more the percentage of confiscation is.



Altruism for me is a personal thing, with the help going to a person or cause that I choose and I know about. Remiting tax payments to the rat hole of the federal government does nothing to make me feel like I am doing anything but being a sucker for playing by the rules.

[Jagger]

There is at least one data point to support that idea...me and my business. I know what would happen to my income if I increased the size of my business, took more risks, worked harder, hired more people, did more volume, and generally increased the scope of what we do. And, I know what would happen, percentage-wise, to the income taxes that I would pay. It doesn't take extensive modeling to realize, for me, the extra work/stress/risk/etc IS NOT worth the increase in the amount of money taken from me by the governement for others' use. If you're going to let an increase in your tax rate - from 36% to 39.6% - on your income over $250,000.00, keep you from getting rich, you're just silly.

[Jagger]

It becomes a real disincentive when one realizes that every dollar earned is going to be cut by at least 50% so that the government can do its work. No one is talking about a tax rate of 50% on income more than $250,00 dude.

[Jagger]

There aren't many that thrive under a system where the more they earn the more the percentage of confiscation is.
The American middle class thrived under progressive taxation.

[Jagger]

The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

--Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

[HS345]

Gerg,
I think you mean Fred, not Doug.

Thanks Joe, but I meant Doug (http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=769644&postcount=27), Fred just repeated it.

Edit: I am a chuckle head, and Doug never said that (my own above link proves it). Again, my apologies Doug. :o

If you're going to let an increase in your tax rate - from 36% to 39.6% - on your income over $250,000.00, keep you from getting rich, you're just silly.
That's not silly at all, especially when you consider all the other taxes that are going to go up. Capital gains, fuel, global tax, sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts, to name just a few.

[Bellsfloors]

If you let an increase in your tax rate - from 36% to 39.6% - on your income over $250,000.00, keep you from getting rich, you're just silly.

Maybe it won't make or break the businesses at this point but when does the increases stop? Think about it. There was a time when there was no taxation at 0% many years ago. Now it is 36% and to increase to 39.6%. Do they stop raising taxes when it finally gets to 100%? If I understand math correctly a steady increase in a percentage will eventually reach 100% and beyond. Seem unlikely? So did Socialism just a few years ago but it's ugly hand is creeping into our system aggressively right now bailing out the private banking and auto industries with our tax dollars.

[dbol]

Doug responded: There is no evidence whatsoever to support that..
I never responded with that!
keep me far away far a liberal thought as possible please!

[Rob Z]

Fred,


I don't know what your background is, I don't know what your financial situation is, and I don't know what you do for a living. But it seems to me that you are missing out on a lot of information if you think the only effect for someone like me is to pay only ~3% more in taxes on income over $250,000.

If it were only a 3% hit, clean and simple like that, then I wouldn't have posted what I posted.

[HS345]

I never responded with that!
keep me far away far a liberal thought as possible please!

Sorry Doug, I fixed it. :o

[jgleason]

No one is talking about a tax rate of 50% on income more than $250,00 dude.

Not yet but I wouldn't be surprised if the top rates will need to be adjusted ever upward. Got to pay for all this stimulus money somehow.

Quite frankly, I'm not impressed with any system of taxation that is "progressive". If I work harder than someone else I don't think I should be penalized by having to pay more (as a percentage) in taxes than someone that chooses not to work as hard.

[HS345]

Fred,


I don't know what your background is, I don't know what your financial situation is, and I don't know what you do for a living.

Fred claims to be an attorney. Here. (http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=698896&postcount=129)

Come to think of it, I guess he never actually claimed to be an attorney, just that he worked his way through law school laying tile.

[Jagger]

Maybe it won't make or break the businesses at this point but when does the increases stop? I got rich when the tax rate on my income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. If I did it, why can't you?

Think about it. There was a time when there was no taxation at 0% many years ago. Now it is 36% and to increase to 39.6%. Do they stop raising taxes when it finally gets to 100%? Beats me, dude. All I know is that I got rich when the tax rate on income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. Maybe the Lord just doesn't want you to be rich.

If I understand math correctly a steady increase in a percentage will eventually reach 100% and beyond. Seem unlikely?
All I know is that I got rich when the tax rate on income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. Maybe you should work more and listen less to Rush Limbaugh.

So did Socialism just a few years ago but it's ugly hand is creeping into our system aggressively right now bailing out the private banking and auto industries with our tax dollars. What is your solution to the banking and auto industry crises?

[Jagger]

I don't know what your background is, I don't know what your financial situation is, and I don't know what you do for a living. But it seems to me that you are missing out on a lot of information if you think the only effect for someone like me is to pay only 3% more in taxes on income over $250,000.

If it were only a 3% hit, clean and simple like that, then I wouldn't have posted what I posted. Huh?

[HotinOKC]

I got rich when the tax rate on my income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. If I did it, why can't you?

Beats me, dude. All I know is that I got rich when the tax rate on income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. Maybe the Lord just doesn't want you to be rich.

All I know is that I got rich when the tax rate on income over $250,000.00 was 39.6%. Maybe you should work more and listen less to Rush Limbaugh.

:shake:

[Jagger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the top rates will need to be adjusted ever upward. Got to pay for all this stimulus money somehow. How much will tax revenue increase by raising the income tax rate on rich people like me?

Quite frankly, I'm not impressed with any system of taxation that is "progressive". If I work harder than someone else I don't think I should be penalized by having to pay more (as a percentage) in taxes than someone that chooses not to work as hard.

Because the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. Therefore, economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

People with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). A person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.

The wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor.

[HotinOKC]

How much will tax revenue increase by raising the income tax rate on rich people like me?

Put a sock in it already. :shades: I have money too, you don't hear me gloating in every post about it, do you? :shrug:

[HS345]

Is there an echo in here? :scratch:

I'm the mother flippin' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugHCkuU8ujk&feature=related). :yeah:

[Rob Z]

Fred, this isn't that hard to understand. If the ONLY thing to deal with is a 3% increase in the tax table, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, as the owner of a small business, the federal tax code is just one of many taxing authorities that have their hands in my pocket. In almost all cases, the amount by percentage that they take from me goes up as I earn more.

As I said before, for me this is a disincentive to earn increasing amounts of money. The cost and benefit ratio for me just isn't right. If it is for you, then bravo lingus. For me, it's not.

[ddmoit]

What we call capitalism is not some system dreamed up by someone. It's what free people do when they're not coerced to do otherwise. All attempts to improve upon this system of voluntary cooperation have failed to produce wealthier, better societies. Artificial, coercively-imposed systems improve the lot of some people, but always at the expense of other people. And, they never result in a better overall society.

[Jagger]

I thought the word "capitalism" meant an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

[HS345]

I thought that's what Dan just said? Although, much more eloquently. :D

Incidentally, I believe the term "capitalism" was first used as a pejorative.

[Jagger]

The fact remains that Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, and the number of people with small business income that will be affected is very small.

[jgleason]

Alrighty then. So, just because the number of affected businesses is small this makes it ok. Got it.

Just don't expect the folks that will end up paying more to like it.

[ddmoit]

Again, applying the lessons of the great Frédéric Bastiat (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html) (later reiterated by Henry Hazlett):

What is seen: a few "rich" business persons, having to pay more taxes

What is unseen: jobs lost and jobs never created as a direct result of the loss of capital suffered by those business persons

[sgrandjean]

Sorry, Fred. I don't buy it. You won't find me hiring anyone. On a separate note, one-hundred twenty-nine posts on two threads in the Mud Box? :bang:

Cheers.

[Davestone]

Well i would bet noone is gonna be hiring.There simply won't be the business to warrant it.I know i'm done for the foreseeable future.And with the new paperwork involved with the carbon scam, and all the other govt. meddlin we are in for a horrible 4 years.

[Jagger]

Alrighty then. So, just because the number of affected businesses is small this makes it ok. Got it. Just don't expect the folks that will end up paying more to like it. It warms my heart to know all you poor Republicans are so concerned about the tax rate that rich Democrats like me pay on income over $250,000.

[Rob Z]

Where's the "smarmy as shole" smilie when you need? :shrug:

[HS345]

It warms my heart to know all you poor Republicans are so concerned about the tax rate that rich Democrats like me pay on income over $250,000.
:rolleyes:

[HotinOKC]

It warms my heart to know all you poor Republicans are so concerned about the tax rate that rich Democrats like me pay on income over $250,000.

:yawn:

Lol Greg, read how many times he's said "I'm rich" in his previous posts.

[HS345]

He's rich alright. :lol1:

[jgleason]

Way to assume things there Jagger. I'm neither poor nor a Republican. I'll refrain from stating how rich I am, as you have done on several occasions in this thread.

[ddclay]

Fred, I'm keeping my business lean and mean. IE: I am not & will not hire until I see a solid upturn for a few months in a row.
BTW, how'd your IRA do today?:dunce::sheep::sheep::sheep::rofl:

[SteveVB]

Fred,

Mind telling us how you got rich? We get that you are rich, but how did you get rich?

Did you take risks and liabilities to become that way by starting and running a small business? Maybe you went to school and were hired by someone else who took the risk? Family Money? Not judging just looking for your point of view.
my guess since you think the marginal 3% isnt a big deal is that you went to work for somene else and took no risk yourself. No skin in the game so to speak.


PS We were rich, now not so much... and it looks like our taxes may go up also :complain:

[Jagger]

Mind telling us how you got rich? We get that you are rich, but how did you get rich? Winning law suits against oil and gas companies.

Did you take risks and liabilities to become that way by starting and running a small business? Yes, I took a lot of risks.

[Jagger]

People as rich as me don't have IRAs.

[Tilehelperdan]

Winning law suits against oil and gas companies

Splains plenty right there, it does.

So basically, you are a tax and spend, pro big govt and anti energy liberal who can't help but come to a working man's website and tell us how much money you have. Probably think your better than me because I don't have a degree.

Anywhoo, as always, taxation just stifles creation and slows the economy.

[Jagger]

You are tax, spend and pro big government.
That would make me a Republican.

Probably think your better than me because I don't have a degree.
I'm better than you, because I have more money than you.

taxation just stifles creation and slows the economy. I agree. Let's abolish welfare starting with the biggest socialist job/welfare program we have: The U. S. Military.

[Tilehelperdan]

Please, please explain how the DOD is anything near a welfare program? Im well aware of the waste in defense spending, but you gotta spend to win. And the guys in the military earn every penny they get. I dare you to say that to any of the guys I know who have been in the fight.

I'm better than you, because I have more money than you.



And with that I declare you a troll. Remember folks, please don't feed the troll. Now im off like a prom dress.

[Jagger]

Please, please explain how the DOD is anything near a welfare program?
It's paid for with taxes, which you claim just stifles creation and slows the economy. If we eliminate all military spending, which is over a trillion dollars per year, it will, according to you, foster creativity and accelerate the economy.

We're spending a trillion dollars a year on the military, and those welfare Kings and Queens can't even whip the Taliban.

[bbcamp]

Fred (Jagger), you may think you are making a point in your argument, but you are really insulting folks in, or formally in, the military service. That's out of line and will not be tolerated. I do expect an apology from you, or I do expect not to see you here anymore.

Understood?


Everyone else: Please refrain from posting until Fred decides his next move.

[Jagger]

...the guys in the military earn every penny they get.
Some do, some don't.

I dare you to say that to any of the guys I know who have been in the fight. I did time in Special Forces, dude. Much of the time was spent telling other soldiers they were employed by the largest socialist program in the world.

PS: I'm six four, two forty and the guy who beat up Super Man. I can say just about whatever I want, to just about anybody I want to, dude.

[bbcamp]

Thank you Fred. You made this very easy for me.

[Tilehelperdan]

Bob = :tup1:

And all defense spending totaled less than 800bn last year.

[jgleason]

Well at least defense spending is one area that is Constitutionally provided for. Can't say that about most of the rest of our current federal spending.

[sandbagger]

last time I checked defense spending was about 4% of GDP. Never mind, I'll look it up. Looks like my memory was purty good. :yeah:


http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.gif

(source: Heritage Foundation Book of Charts. (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html))

[jgleason]

Hi Art,
Does that chart include all the off budget defense spending? (i.e.-prosecuting the war in Iraq)

Its all the stuff that is off budget(like social security) that hides the true cost of everything.

[cx]

Well at least defense spending is one area that is Constitutionally provided for.The way it's set up now, Joe, it's absolutely and completely un-Constitutional.

We've had a Congressional vote in the past two years to have a standing army?

We've had a Congressional declaration of war for any of the past three or four?

Nope, ain't nothin' the least bit Constitutional about our "defense" spending.

My opinion; worth price charged.

[jgleason]

Point taken cx. I was just trying to point out that spending on defense was at least specified in the Constitution, unlike say spending for SS. People twist the plain language in the Constitution to justify just about anything though.

Section 8:

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;

So, funding armies should be for two year terms. The navy suffers no such restriction. :D

And yea, the Executive branch has for decades usurped the authority from the Legislative branch to declare war or whatever we call it to justify sending troops hither and yon.

[Tilehelperdan]

CX, im thinking that most every dime spent in the last fifty years was unconstitutional. Its sad when the leaders of the country blatantly dont care about the rules.

[cx]

Its sad when the leaders of the country blatantly dont care about the rules. It's even more sad when we allow them to remain in elected office once they've clearly demonstrated that, Dan. We've no one to blame but ourselves. :shades:

[sandbagger]

Joe - The full title of the chart as displayed on their website is "Despite War Costs, Defense Spending Falls Below Historical Average." So I believe that the chart does include the "off-budget" spending. Heritage may be conservative (by their own admission) but I believe they really try to play it straight with the numbers. Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to do otherwise.

There's another "analysis" that the anti-war websites like to use that shows a much larger number. That number is based on the argument (theirs) that defense spending is what creates the deficit and therefore you have to include the cost of debt service. That's silly, but I thought I'd mention it for reference.

As for the "Constitution according to Ron Paul" arguments about the military and national defense, well, let's just say we don't agree. :D With regard to the perpetuation of the FDR policies of entitlements and outright socialism, now that's a whole nuther matter.