Explain this please?
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: BoBo, Congress, Democrats, Idiots, Liberals, Politics, Taxes, government
Sorry – another quick hit and run post. I came across an article and read this:
Among added measures: new tax incentives encouraging auto and home sales and boosting funding for construction of affordable housing and medical research. A congressional estimate Thursday said the home purchase tax break comes with a price of $35.5 billion, almost double what was estimated a day before. That would push the potential cost of the broader package to $930 billion or more. (Emphasis is mine)
If this is a tax break – which means the government doesn’t receive any money for this, how can they include that in the cost of this spending bill? This isn’t money that is being spent or lost. This is just money that the government does not receive in taxes. If you don’t have it and never had it – how can you add it to the costs of the total bill?
Let me see if I understand this – using my simple BoBo logic. Before the economic downturn I was thinking of buying a slurpee for $1.50 but really hadn’t committed yet. Once the economy started spiraling down and prices of that slurpee started dropping, I was now seriously considering buying that slurpee for $1.00 but just couldn’t make up my mind whether I really want to do that. After all, it’s kinda risky in this economy to do that. But, Congress is now saying that if I actually commit to buying that Slurpee I will only have to pay 5% tax instead of 7% tax and somehow they get to claim they’re losing money on the deal? I never bought the slurpee in the first place when it was $1.50 with a 7% tax meaning Congress never got that money. So, how is my committing to buying a slurpee at $1.00 and 5% tax somehow a loss for them that they can claim in the stimulus package?
How the hell can you put a cost of a loss of something you never owned or received?
Sphere: Related ContentTags: Congress, Democrats, Idiots, Liberals, pork, Senate, spending bill, Stimulus package, Taxes
February 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I wish I could explain it. I can’t. Nothing they are doing makes much sense. I think that’s their plan. My hair is turning whiter by the minute I tell you.
Have a terrific weekend.
Reply to Comedy Plus
February 6th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Easy, BoBo! So Obama can give you that “change” he’s been promising you!
Matts last blog post..What You Need To Know Right Now, Because….
Reply to Matt
February 7th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Ah yes–the “creative” accounting that the Liberal Democrats have bestowed upon the gullible populace. (I like to call it “back door” accounting myself.)
vulcanhammers last blog post..The Stimulus package and viagra have a lot in common
Reply to vulcanhammer
February 7th, 2009 at 2:45 am
It is the same method used to choose cabinet members… There are no real “taxes” until somebody notices that there are. So because you did not buy that Slurpee, you are not eligible to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Heresy Todays last blog post..Matthew 28:18-20
Reply to Heresy Today
February 7th, 2009 at 3:20 am
I can answer the question for you Bobo my Dear –
“How the hell can you put a cost of a loss of something you never owned or received?”
Well, the same way they are spending money that isn’t there.
Don’t you see?
They are in a totally different DIMENSION THAN YOU OR I!
Fer Cryin’ Out Loud the folks have traded their brains in for mashed potatoes!!!!!!!!
phtt
Monicas last blog post..There is a Sun Above the Clouds
Reply to Monica
February 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
They seriously must be in a different dimension and I would most definitely call this creative accounting. Maybe I should claim a $1 million on my taxes this year because that is the amount of money I lost since I didn’t actually go to medical school.
If I understand accounting correctly, you can only account for the money if it is actually earned or received. You can also only account for a loss of something if you’ve spent money on it and didn’t recover all of the costs associated with whatever you spent on it. So, if a tax break just means you lowered the amount of money you will receive on something you did not actually spend money on, then I still don’t understand how they can account for a break in a “spending” bill in dollar amounts. Essentially, this is just an expectation of how much money they expect NOT to earn on goods they don’t make or sell.
You know, Matt – this is most definitely change that I can’t believe in! LOL.
Reply to The BoBo
February 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Well my campaign slogan was Keep the Change. I don’t know why I couldn’t convince McCain to use it. Maybe he was too busy looking up Sarah Palin’s skirt. I dunno. Anywho, this is how Congress thinks. They believe Americans are too dumb or disinterested to pay attention so any mumbo jumbo they say sounds like seafood gumbo and the taxpayers fall for it every time. I posted a link on twitter on the IG site for people to find the actual bill and read it, but who has time for a 600 page tome? I mean, if I’m going to read 600 pages, it’s going to be War and Peace. Oh wait, that’s Pelosi’s tactics. I’m so confused.
Reply to Matt Urdan
February 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Because they believe that tax money that would have gone into the coffers to be rightfully theirs.
It’s like the old African tale of the tiger cub learning that just because he was a tiger, and no matter how hard he roared at the oceans, the mountains, and the wind, in the end he could not rule them…they didn’t bow to him.
Until “We the people” disabuse the DC crowd of the notion that they are in fact not even tigers, that we will not bow to them, that they work for us, they will just keep trying to roar their way past us with nary a clue.
Gregs last blog post..More re-distribution of wealth hidden in Stimulus Bill
Reply to Greg
February 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
It’s because they assume a certain number of houses will be purchased next year, and they also assume taxable income will be a certain amount — so if they implement the tax credit, revenue will decrease by a certain amount. Also, politicians are stupid.
Angry Maxs last blog post..Another Week of Infallibility
Reply to Angry Max
February 12th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“Also, politicians are stupid.”
You got that right! LOL
Reply to The BoBo
February 15th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Bobo,
This is an old democrat trick. This is the same tactic dems use against republicans to scare voters. When the dems propose a budget increase for a democrat pet project like welfare say by 10% but the repbulicans propose a 3% increase; the democrats will claim the republicans want to cut welfare by 7%. Of course, our fair and balanced main stream media prints the 7% cut.
If the 3% is passed, the dems go crazy and don’t own up to the fact that the program got a 3% increase from the previous year.
It was truly amazing is how many people actually fall for the same trick year after year. Most of our fellow citizens will fall for it this time.
Reply to Raider Steve