PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama sends Congress $3.73 trillion budget


HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 11:15 AM
Virtually no leadership against the most pressing long term problem this country faces. No effort to cut anything that amounts to anything. No proposals to deal with SS, Medicare, Medicaide. And ignored all the recommendations of his own bipartisan debt reduction task force.

Politics at its best. Make someone else propose what needs to be done then demonize them for votes.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_budget

FD
02-14-2011, 11:28 AM
My quick take:

The good:
Almost $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending
About 90% of renewable energy spending is for nuclear power
Making permanent the R&D tax credit

The bad:
$1 trillion isn't enough (thats the main thing, although $1 trillion is a good start)
He doesn't include his cut in the corporate tax rate, for some reason
Continues a tax credit for electric cars

Donger
02-14-2011, 12:13 PM
I see that our debt exceeded 100% of our GDP today. That's nice.

Amnorix
02-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Virtually no leadership against the most pressing long term problem this country faces. No effort to cut anything that amounts to anything. No proposals to deal with SS, Medicare, Medicaide. And ignored all the recommendations of his own bipartisan debt reduction task force.

Politics at its best. Make someone else propose what needs to be done then demonize them for votes.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_budget

I'm glad we have a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to the deficit issue. Where were you from 2001-2009?

Amnorix
02-14-2011, 12:19 PM
I see that our debt exceeded 100% of our GDP today. That's nice.

:banghead:

chiefsnorth
02-14-2011, 12:21 PM
Remember, this is the guy who said the problem with FDR was that he didn't spend enough and he didn't spend fast enough.

talastan
02-14-2011, 12:49 PM
I'm glad we have a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to the deficit issue. Where were you from 2001-2009?

Screaming at the Repubs for making the same freaking mistakes!!

Amnorix
02-14-2011, 12:55 PM
Screaming at the Repubs for making the same freaking mistakes!!


Some of you, yes. Too many gave the free pass that is common in our two party system. What "they" do is wrong, 100% of the time (or nearly so) and what "we" do (even when it's the same thing that "they" did) is right 100% of the time (or nearly so).

The deficit needs attention as quickly as possible.

Republicans, by and large, however, think this is purely a spending side issue. Oh wait, it's a non-military spending side issue. Don't increase taxes and don't cut military spending.

That's basically ignoring 75% of the problem and trying to fix the whole thing based on the remaining 25%. Completely unrealistic.

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 01:04 PM
I see that our debt exceeded 100% of our GDP today. That's nice.

Is B.O. an imbecile, or is he doing it on purpose?

:hmmm:

Donger
02-14-2011, 01:07 PM
Some of you, yes. Too many gave the free pass that is common in our two party system. What "they" do is wrong, 100% of the time (or nearly so) and what "we" do (even when it's the same thing that "they" did) is right 100% of the time (or nearly so).

The deficit needs attention as quickly as possible.

Republicans, by and large, however, think this is purely a spending side issue. Oh wait, it's a non-military spending side issue. Don't increase taxes and don't cut military spending.

That's basically ignoring 75% of the problem and trying to fix the whole thing based on the remaining 25%. Completely unrealistic.

Didn't the Pentagon recently come up with $80 billion in cuts?

HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 01:14 PM
Didn't the Pentagon recently come up with $80 billion in cuts?

No. They ID'ed how they can freeze and over a period of time they would not need increases. In Obamanomics that is a "cut"

jiveturkey
02-14-2011, 01:15 PM
I saw this posted on another site.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

Garcia Bronco
02-14-2011, 01:17 PM
In 2007 our budget was 2.5 trillion....now he's cut a trillion nd it's still 3.7...FOS

Donger
02-14-2011, 01:20 PM
I saw this posted on another site.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

That's just, plain scary. $2.5 trillion for Social Security, Medicare/caid and INTEREST payments on the debt?

alnorth
02-14-2011, 01:20 PM
He doesn't include his cut in the corporate tax rate, for some reason

He sort of does, but not really. Apparently his budget includes a statement that the rate should be cut to offset the increase from closing international loopholes to be overall revenue-neutral. Fine, but what is that rate? Is it a tiny worthless cut, or something sizable? His budget refuses to say.

Here's a very interesting file I found which shows corporate tax rates throughout history. Virtually every other major industrialized country in the world has significantly cut their corporate tax rate except the US and Japan, and Japan is scheduled to have a cut go in soon.

Our corporate tax rate is now horrifyingly high compared to the rest of the world. (Look back at what it was in the early 80's! Wow)

Chief Faithful
02-14-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm glad we have a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to the deficit issue. Where were you from 2001-2009?

:spock:

Where were you when the republican base turned on its leaders over this issue in 2006?

A significant number of the republican base have been screaming about this issue since the 60's so why is this such a surprise to you?

Spending was a major issue that helped sweep Newt and the Republicans into office in 1992. So why is it a surprise that so many conservatives are still screaming for fiscal accountability in 2011?

Did you miss the whole Tea-party uprising that was born out of frustration from decades of out of control government spending and growth of bureaucracy?

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 01:22 PM
That's just, plain scary. $2.5 trillion for Social Security, Medicare/caid and INTEREST payments on the debt?

Do you still think America will survive this regime?

alnorth
02-14-2011, 01:23 PM
Our corporate tax rate is now horrifyingly high compared to the rest of the world. (Look back at what it was in the early 80's! Wow)

quick clarification, you need to switch to the far left 2010 tab, I apparently attached the file with the 1983 tab highlighted.

Donger
02-14-2011, 01:24 PM
Do you still think America will survive this regime?

Yes, but it will take many years to reverse the damage caused my the massive increase in debt that we've seen over the last few years.

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 01:25 PM
Yes, but it will take many years to reverse the damage caused my the massive increase in debt that we've seen over the last few years.

But how can we "reverse the damage"? You can't put an egg back in it's shell once you made an omelet.

Donger
02-14-2011, 01:25 PM
But how can we "reverse the damage"? You can't put an egg back in it's shell once you made an omelet.

By actually paying down the balance on the debt, not just making interest payments.

Chief Faithful
02-14-2011, 01:29 PM
By actually paying down the balance on the debt, not just making interest payments.

Our government keeps talking about deficit, but what worries me is the problem is the balance of debt which nobody is talking about.

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 01:31 PM
By actually paying down the balance on the debt, not just making interest payments.

Is it mathematically possible?

HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 01:31 PM
But how can we "reverse the damage"? You can't put an egg back in it's shell once you made an omelet.

Its reversible with a lot of dedicated effort. The economy will in time recover and that will generate more tax revenue. But that alone will not approach what is needed.

Even if we were to float along and never decrease or increase the deficit, the looming issue is interest rates. We have to service the debt and an increase in rates will blow us out of the water if we cannot stop needless and foolish spending on one side and reduce the money outflows to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense.

Deficit reduction is absolute. It must be don. But it cannot be done with a chickenshit set of elected officials from all parties. It will take massive balls and a congress strong enough to do what has to be done. The President had his golden opportunity and with this budget he blew it.

Now the ball is in others hands because he wouldn't do the hard work and shoulder any responsibility. Time will tell if they have the stones but my bet is they at least start and get a lot further than Obama did and he will fight them every step of the way.

Donger
02-14-2011, 01:31 PM
Is it mathematically possible?

Of course. But is it politically possible?

Jaric
02-14-2011, 01:32 PM
Do you still think America will survive this regime?

Rome fell once, it can fall again.

alnorth
02-14-2011, 01:34 PM
For those of you who dont have excel:

<table border=3 cellpadding = 4>
<tr> <td>Country </td><td>Combined corporate income tax rate </td></tr>
<tr> <td>Japan </td><td>39.54</td></tr>
<tr> <td>United States </td><td>39.2055</td></tr>
<tr> <td>France </td><td>34.43</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Belgium </td><td>33.99</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Germany </td><td>30.175</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Australia </td><td>30</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Mexico </td><td>30</td></tr>
<tr> <td>New Zealand </td><td>30</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Spain </td><td>30</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Canada </td><td>29.52</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Luxembourg </td><td>28.59</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Norway </td><td>28</td></tr>
<tr> <td>United Kingdom </td><td>28</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Italy </td><td>27.5</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Portugal </td><td>26.5</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Sweden </td><td>26.3</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Finland </td><td>26</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Netherlands </td><td>25.5</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Austria </td><td>25</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Denmark </td><td>25</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Korea </td><td>24.2</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Greece </td><td>24</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Switzerland </td><td>21.17443782</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Turkey </td><td>20</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Czech Republic </td><td>19</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Hungary </td><td>19</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Poland </td><td>19</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Slovak Republic </td><td>19</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Chile </td><td>17</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Iceland </td><td>15</td></tr>
<tr> <td>Ireland</td><td> 12.5</td></tr>
</table>

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 01:34 PM
Of course. But is it politically possible?

Well I guess we can all call it a day, then.

alnorth
02-14-2011, 01:35 PM
By actually paying down the balance on the debt, not just making interest payments.

realistically, we'll inflate the debt away. China (and anyone who bought US Treasuries) will be pissed, but I bet we'd start printing dollars before we made wicked cuts in entitlements.

Jaric
02-14-2011, 01:37 PM
Its reversible with a lot of dedicated effort. The economy will in time recover and that will generate more tax revenue. But that alone will not approach what is needed.

Even if we were to float along and never decrease or increase the deficit, the looming issue is interest rates. We have to service the debt and an increase in rates will blow us out of the water if we cannot stop needless and foolish spending on one side and reduce the money outflows to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense.

Deficit reduction is absolute. It must be don. But it cannot be done with a chickenshit set of elected officials from all parties. It will take massive balls and a congress strong enough to do what has to be done. The President had his golden opportunity and with this budget he blew it.

Now the ball is in others hands because he wouldn't do the hard work and shoulder any responsibility. Time will tell if they have the stones but my bet is they at least start and get a lot further than Obama did and he will fight them every step of the way.

Why should they address the issue? We all know the solution. The problem is that proposing it is political suicide. We can blame politicians all we want but WE elected them. It's up to us to hold them accountable which isn't going to happen. It's the fundamental problem with representative government in that you only have to pacify the lowest common denominator.

Bread and circuses. It's no different than it was was 2000 years ago.

mlyonsd
02-14-2011, 01:46 PM
I'm glad we have a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to the deficit issue. Where were you from 2001-2009?

A good share of the debt Bush accumulated was war related. Wars which were pushed and approved by both sides btw.

As for the rest of it, you're right. Some of us complained about his spending but didn't trumpet it like we do now.

As for the stimulus's....far more TARP money will be paid back than we'll ever see from Obama stimulus bucks.

Cave Johnson
02-14-2011, 01:56 PM
He sort of does, but not really. Apparently his budget includes a statement that the rate should be cut to offset the increase from closing international loopholes to be overall revenue-neutral. Fine, but what is that rate? Is it a tiny worthless cut, or something sizable? His budget refuses to say.

Here's a very interesting file I found which shows corporate tax rates throughout history. Virtually every other major industrialized country in the world has significantly cut their corporate tax rate except the US and Japan, and Japan is scheduled to have a cut go in soon.

Our corporate tax rate is now horrifyingly high compared to the rest of the world. (Look back at what it was in the early 80's! Wow)

Is that the nominal or actual/effective corporate rate? As I understand the issue, the latter is comparatively low due to loopholes, etc.

LaDairis
02-14-2011, 02:00 PM
The "W's spending was all war related" is complete BS. W porked out, socialized, and spent more across the board. His wife demanded doubling the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. W's "no child left behind" was a huge porkout to public education, a "relly reely kinscwrervativ" group... W socialized senior drugs by lying about the cost.

Hence, since W was such a liar, his defenders can only defend him by LYING about WHAT W REALLY DID...

HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 02:02 PM
The "W's spending was all war related" is complete BS. W porked out, socialized, and spent more across the board. His wife demanded doubling the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. W's "no child left behind" was a huge porkout to public education, a "relly reely kinscwrervativ" group... W socialized senior drugs by lying about the cost.

Hence, since W was such a liar, his defenders can only defend him by LYING about WHAT W REALLY DID...


Defending it wont accomplish a thing. Debates over what was are of no value as we try to fix what is. Wrong was wrong. Its simple. Now we need to fix it.

FD
02-14-2011, 02:11 PM
Why should they address the issue? We all know the solution. The problem is that proposing it is political suicide. We can blame politicians all we want but WE elected them. It's up to us to hold them accountable which isn't going to happen. It's the fundamental problem with representative government in that you only have to pacify the lowest common denominator.

Bread and circuses. It's no different than it was was 2000 years ago.

Yep. Politicians are just giving the people what they want:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1889-1.png
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1889-4.png

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1889/poll-federal-spending-programs-budget-cuts-raise-taxes-state-budgets

LaDairis
02-14-2011, 02:20 PM
Defending it wont accomplish a thing. Debates over what was are of no value as we try to fix what is. Wrong was wrong. Its simple. Now we need to fix it.



No, we need to identify the sub humans who supported it, and make sure they are excluded from any classification as "American" for the rest of history.

2 active treasons against the US is enough.

alnorth
02-14-2011, 02:27 PM
Is that the nominal or actual/effective corporate rate? As I understand the issue, the latter is comparatively low due to loopholes, etc.

The last column in the file supposedly attempts to account for everything, tax rates at national and local levels of government, deductions, etc.

Donger
02-14-2011, 02:33 PM
No, we need to identify the sub humans who supported it, and make sure they are excluded from any classification as "American" for the rest of history.

2 active treasons against the US is enough.

I voted for Bush twice.

Where do I need to go to turn in my "American" card?

LaDairis
02-14-2011, 02:41 PM
Tel Aviv, where you and every other person obsessed with Israeli re-conquest of the Promise Land belong...

Donger
02-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Tel Aviv, where you and every other person obsessed with Israeli re-conquest of the Promise Land belong...

But I don't really care about the Israeli re-conquest of the Promise (sic) Land.

vailpass
02-14-2011, 02:44 PM
Tel Aviv, where you and every other person obsessed with Israeli re-conquest of the Promise Land belong...

ja Bruder! die Wahrheit sagen!!!

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 02:45 PM
Tel Aviv, where you and every other person obsessed with Israeli re-conquest of the Promise Land belong...

Send all the Zionist, subhuman traitors away!

http://www.solarmovie.com/images/movies/0090881_200x300.jpg

LaDairis
02-14-2011, 02:51 PM
The Zionists are not the sub humans. The sub humans are the ones the Zionists lie to, like the sub humans who still think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was something other than intentional, deliberate treason against the US.

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 02:53 PM
The Zionists are not the sub humans. The sub humans are the ones the Zionists lie to, like the sub humans who still think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was something other than intentional, deliberate treason against the US.

Oh, I see.

So subhumans are goyem?

LaDairis
02-14-2011, 02:55 PM
Sub humans perceive reality incorrectly. For example, they think the biggest spender since LBJ is "conservative..."

Donger
02-14-2011, 02:55 PM
The Zionists are not the sub humans. The sub humans are the ones the Zionists lie to, like the sub humans who still think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was something other than intentional, deliberate treason against the US.

So Zionists are sub-sub humans?

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 02:55 PM
http://www.solarmovie.com/images/movies/0090881_200x300.jpg

vailpass
02-14-2011, 02:58 PM
Oh, I see.

So subhumans are goyem?

2 of my roomates in grad school referred to me as Dirty Goy. They were both Schlomo to me. Still two of my best friends. I am shocked to learn on tbhis forum that they and their people are the cause of so much of the world's ills.

Donger
02-14-2011, 03:00 PM
So subhumans are goyem?

Isn't that the creepy creature from Lord of the Rings?

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 03:01 PM
Isn't that the creepy creature from Lord of the Rings?

I think that was Golem.

Is the word I was thinking of spelled Goyim?

The Mad Crapper
02-14-2011, 03:02 PM
2 of my roomates in grad school referred to me as Dirty Goy. They were both Schlomo to me. Still two of my best friends. I am shocked to learn on tbhis forum that they and their people are the cause of so much of the world's ills.

I wonder if Pseudocons are goy? Or maybe they are zionists. No wait, probably subhumans.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2011, 03:07 PM
That's basically ignoring 75% of the problem and trying to fix the whole thing based on the remaining 25%. Completely unrealistic.

And there you lost me.

You honestly believe 75% of the problem is that we spend too much money on the military and our tax rates are too low? And you do this in the same sermon in which you have the audacity to accuse folks of being idealogues?

I'm with you in one sense: It is unacceptable to me that the Republicans continue to say "we'll cut spending...but military cuts are off the board." That's assinine, military cuts have to happen - period. Further, there are places where the tax rate can go up, but they can't be in a manner which hinders job creation.

But for you to castigate folks for being closed-minded partisians and then claim that the military and low tax rates (ostensibly on the wealthy) are to blame for 75% of our budget deficit is completely hypocritical and, honestly, quite stupid.

ROYC75
02-14-2011, 03:24 PM
I see that our debt exceeded 100% of our GDP today. That's nice.

:shake: OK, I know you were joking about the nice part, but it's a recipe for disaster.

chiefqueen
02-14-2011, 03:37 PM
Here's the link:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Cave Johnson
02-14-2011, 03:40 PM
I think that was Golem.

Is the word I was thinking of spelled Goyim?

It's a joke, shitty.

ROYC75
02-14-2011, 08:03 PM
$3.73 TRILLION, Please one of you Liberal clowns come back and spin this that Obama does not believe in BIG GOVERNMENT.

Bewbies
02-14-2011, 08:34 PM
$3.73 TRILLION, Please one of you Liberal clowns come back and spin this that Obama does not believe in BIG GOVERNMENT.

He's Reagan!!

Bewbies
02-14-2011, 08:35 PM
We hate Ronald Reagan, but sure as hell when our guy is getting his shit pushed in we're going to run open armed to making our guy look like Reagan. You know, that evil guy we hated in the 80's who did everything wrong.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2011, 08:59 PM
Increase Taxes.

http://www.atr.org/obamas-fy-budgetbr-taxes-more-a5844#

patteeu
02-15-2011, 06:54 AM
I'm glad we have a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to the deficit issue. Where were you from 2001-2009?

The deficit issue wasn't nearly as pressing during the Bush years and the president then was at least willing to begin to address the entitlement spending problem but he encountered immediate, fierce resistance from Obama's party.

Worse than any Johnny-come-latelies are the people who voted for Barack Obama even after he campaigned on increasing spending over and above Bush levels by nearly $1 trillion (and that's before the financial crisis gave him the excuse for porkulus).

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:08 AM
Increase Taxes.

http://www.atr.org/obamas-fy-budgetbr-taxes-more-a5844#

Mmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm!


With the release of his FY 2012 budget today, the President is attempting to brand reckless spending and higher taxes as fiscal reform. In reality, this is the same foolhardy budgeting we’ve seen over the past two years of the Obama Administration, with one difference: more spending.

Record overspending – the President’s budget calls for a record level of overspending, after the unprecedented growth of the previous two years. The plan calls for spending to reach $3.8 trillion this year, mounting 25.3 percent of GDP, the highest share since World War II. This pales in comparison to the ten-year outlook; the budget calls for $8.7 trillion in new spending, projecting outlays of $46 trillion over the next decade.

Digging the hole deeper - While CBO recently estimated the FY 2011 budget deficit would reach $1.5 trillion, President Obama’s budget overspends at the highest rate that country has ever witnessed, creating a $1.65 trillion deficit for FY 2011. The President has falsely alleged the budget will “reduce” the deficit by $1.1 trillion, neglecting to mention that this is less than one tenth of the overspending his budget requires in the next decade.

Increases taxes to fuel higher spending – Instead of cutting spending, the President is increasing taxes to grow government. The budget hikes taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years while spending almost ten times that in the same period.

Spending “freeze” is not restraint – While House Republicans will introduce the first Continuing Resolution this week that actually cuts spending, the President’s budget hopes to scam taxpayers on the idea of a spending “freeze,” establishing the explosion in discretionary spending as the baseline for government growth in the future.

Spending the spending “cuts” – The President’s budget adopts the recommendations by Defense Secretary Gates that claim to cut Pentagon spending by $78 billion over the next five years. In fact, the spending cuts are plowed back into military budgets to cover overhead costs and allow for a full percentage point of growth over the next decade. The plan would increase Pentagon spending by $8 billion in the first fiscal year alone.

Extends and expands wasteful “stimulus” spending – after 2 years of government spending unemployment remains high and economic recovery is still illusive. However, the President’s budget assumes more of the same, allocating over $50 billion for his Administration’s Race to the Top education program that has already bloated state obligations and the White House pet project of high-speed rail, which has received billions in “stimulus” funds but done little to spur economic growth.

Ignores unsustainable entitlement spending – the President’s budget is notably silent on the explosive growth of Medicare and Social Security spending. Instead of scrutinizing these mandatory behemoths, the budget calls for $404 billion in spending beyond projected growth on these programs.ROFL


Read more: http://www.atr.org/index.php#ixzz1E24eRLt8

Oh, we are good an fucked. :thumb:

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:17 AM
Didn't the Pentagon recently come up with $80 billion in cuts?

I believe I posted this before in another thread, but isn't it more like "reduced projected increased spending"?

It's spaced out of five years or whatever, and still, IIRC, shows net aggregate increases in military spending each year.

Unless there's been a new proposal I'm not aware of (certainly possible, I was working like a dog the last few weeks).

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:20 AM
:spock:

Where were you when the republican base turned on its leaders over this issue in 2006?

Oh, this was why the Republicans lost in 2006. It's base turned on Bush over the deficit. I seemed to think it had more to do with independents, the economy and Iraq, but thanks for clearing that up for me.

Spending was a major issue that helped sweep Newt and the Republicans into office in 1992. So why is it a surprise that so many conservatives are still screaming for fiscal accountability in 2011?

If they scream about it so much, how come they don't ever, Ever, EVER practice it?

Let's face it, from the Republican side financial accountability has been little but talk since Nixon.

Did you miss the whole Tea-party uprising that was born out of frustration from decades of out of control government spending and growth of bureaucracy?

I haven't missed it, but loss Ross Perot, I dont' spend much time on marginal movements until, you know, they actually DO something. So far they've done little.

I was talking about Republicans -- not "conservatives". I think true conservatives do care, greatly, about the budget. But many Republicans aren't the conservatives they think they are. Or, at least, their leaders in Congress aren't willing to walk the walk, though they often talk the talk.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:21 AM
Do you still think America will survive this regime?

No. We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD I tell ya.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:22 AM
Is it mathematically possible?

Oh FFS. :rolleyes:

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:22 AM
Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.

■Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
■Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
■Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
■Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
■New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
■New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
■New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
■Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
■Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
■Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
■A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
■Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
■The “tax relief” in the budget is mostly just an extension of present law, and also some refundable credit outlay spending in the tax code.

There is virtually no new tax relief relative to present law in the President’s budget.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:24 AM
A good share of the debt Bush accumulated was war related. Wars which were pushed and approved by both sides btw.

No, really, it wasn't. Sure, it was a contributing factor, but the dot.com bubble bursting and the 2001/2002 tax cuts had alot more to do with it than war costs.

As for the rest of it, you're right. Some of us complained about his spending but didn't trumpet it like we do now..

Thanks for your honestly.

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:40 AM
No. We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD I tell ya.

Oh FFS. :rolleyes:

Don't talk to me you scumbag.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:42 AM
And there you lost me.

You honestly believe 75% of the problem is that we spend too much money on the military and our tax rates are too low? And you do this in the same sermon in which you have the audacity to accuse folks of being idealogues?

I'm with you in one sense: It is unacceptable to me that the Republicans continue to say "we'll cut spending...but military cuts are off the board." That's assinine, military cuts have to happen - period. Further, there are places where the tax rate can go up, but they can't be in a manner which hinders job creation.

But for you to castigate folks for being closed-minded partisians and then claim that the military and low tax rates (ostensibly on the wealthy) are to blame for 75% of our budget deficit is completely hypocritical and, honestly, quite stupid.

75% is just a number I tossed out there, and it might not be the "right" number, but it's a helluva lot closer to "right" than, say, 25%.

There's two sides to this coin, income and spending, or taxes and spending in this case. Taxes are subject to Laffer Curve limitations, but clearly are low on a net basis compared to where we've been, historically, for the last 50 or 60 years. Taxes are 50% of your situation

And here's your 2010 federal spending pie chart.

Ignore Social Security -- the 19%, because that's a PROFIT CENTER for the United States government. it takes in MORE than it lays out on that stuff, so it's self-sustaining, at least for now. Obviously, in the long runt hat's not true, but in 2011, it's not a problem, it's a benefit, from the federal government's deficit/debt viewpoint.

I don't know if Medicare is also fully self-sustaining, but it's certainly at least partly self-sustaining, and to whatever extent it is self-sustaining, that piece also gets knocked out.

Once you knock those out, and knock out the interest on the debt, you've got a situation where military spending is close to being equal to all other federal spending combined.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg



So you have a situation where you have taxes on one side (probably too low, sad to say) and military spending and discretionary non-military spending on the other side of the budget.

Whack up the percentages however you like, but IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to achieve a balanced budget solely on discretionary non-military spending. I'm not sure it's possible mathematically speaking, but even if it, it's certainly not possible politically speaking, and I don't just mean Democratic intransigence -- I doubt Republicans really want to basically eliminate all non-military domestic spending, which is probably about what it would take.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:44 AM
Don't talk to me you scumbag.

I'm talking to you. :Poke:

Whatcha gonna do about it hunh? You gonna neg rep me? Make bad words appear on my computer monitor? Oh please don't be mean to me.

I believe there's a function on here for those who don't want to see what someon else posts.

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:47 AM
. I'm not sure it's possible mathematically speaking

Oh FFS. :rolleyes:

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:49 AM
Let the board acknowledge who the instigator is.

I'm talking to you. :Poke:

Whatcha gonna do about it hunh? You gonna neg rep me? Make bad words appear on my computer monitor? Oh please don't be mean to me.

I believe there's a function on here for those who don't want to see what someon else posts.

Alrighty then, have it your way idiot.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:50 AM
Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.



Thanks for reaffirming that our current tax rate is too low by 3.5% of GDP, which is a pretty big number.

I'd be perfectly happy to go above historical average if I had one iota of confidence that EVERY DIME would be used to pay down the deficit. Unfortunately, I don't.

My apologies for speaking to you. If it makes you feel better, you can consider this message posted not "to you", but to the greater ChiefsPlanet community.

stevieray
02-15-2011, 07:55 AM
I see Amnorix's first repsonse is the typical liberal 'hey, they did it too' mantra.


Spending more than all admins combined is Obama's, and is all on Obama.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:59 AM
I see Amnorix's first repsonse is the typical liberal 'hey, they did it too' mantra.


Spending more than all admins combined is Obama's, and is all on Obama.

Did Bush spend more than all admins combined also? If not, I bet it's pretty close. But hey, he was your guy, so it was all good.


And for the record, you won't find many more in favor of deficit fighting than me. I despise the current budget/debt situation, but then again, I've been talking about it on here since, I dunno maybe May 2003.

HonestChieffan
02-15-2011, 08:00 AM
I see Amnorix's first repsonse is the typical liberal 'hey, they did it too' mantra.


Spending more than all admins combined is Obama's, and is all on Obama.


Yupper. The truth is it is a problem created by republicans and democrats and neither side is clean. Too bad we have to spend 90% of the time fixing blame and the rest on stop gaps to pass the problem on to the next poor sap.

And now that we know the problem, it is his and congress to fix. All this blame laying is a waste of energy. Obama made his play with the budget and clearly has no plan to slow spending nor any interest in leading that process. So, it falls to congress

stevieray
02-15-2011, 08:00 AM
Did Bush spend more than all admins combined also? If not, I bet it's pretty close. But hey, he was your guy, so it was all good.

...no, he was the whole Country's guy, just like Obama is now.

find a new angle., this is one boring.

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 08:03 AM
Thanks for reaffirming that our current tax rate is too low by 3.5% of GDP, which is a pretty big number.

Yeah because the historical average probably used here is a mean average, not a mode average.

You fucking piece of shit.

mlyonsd
02-15-2011, 08:05 AM
No, really, it wasn't. Sure, it was a contributing factor, but the dot.com bubble bursting and the 2001/2002 tax cuts had alot more to do with it than war costs.


Yes, yes it was. Not as much as the tax cuts but definitely "a good share" of the added debt.

dirk digler
02-15-2011, 08:07 AM
Yupper. The truth is it is a problem created by republicans and democrats and neither side is clean. Too bad we have to spend 90% of the time fixing blame and the rest on stop gaps to pass the problem on to the next poor sap.

And now that we know the problem, it is his and congress to fix. All this blame laying is a waste of energy. Obama made his play with the budget and clearly has no plan to slow spending nor any interest in leading that process. So, it falls to congress

It is always falls on Congress that is their job.

If either side was serious they would pass a balanced budget, reform SS and Medicare and raise taxes.

Good luck on that.

HonestChieffan
02-15-2011, 08:11 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html?hp

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 08:13 AM
Yupper. The truth is it is a problem created by republicans and democrats and neither side is clean. Too bad we have to spend 90% of the time fixing blame and the rest on stop gaps to pass the problem on to the next poor sap.

I absolutely agree.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 08:14 AM
Yeah because the historical average probably used here is a mean average, not a mode average.

You fucking piece of shit.



Do I *sniff* take this to mean you don't *sniff* like me?

WV
02-15-2011, 08:56 AM
It is always falls on Congress that is their job.

If either side was serious they would pass a balanced budget, reform SS and Medicare and raise taxes.

Good luck on that.

People can't handle the truth!

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 09:32 AM
Do I *sniff* take this to mean you don't *sniff* like me?

Well yeah, that and the fact that you are a piece of shit.

patteeu
02-15-2011, 09:38 AM
If they scream about it so much, how come they don't ever, Ever, EVER practice it?

Oh, FFS. :rolleyes:

patteeu
02-15-2011, 09:43 AM
Ignore Social Security -- the 19%, because that's a PROFIT CENTER for the United States government. it takes in MORE than it lays out on that stuff, so it's self-sustaining, at least for now.

Not according to the so-called Newspaper of Record:

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year - NYTimes, March 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html)

patteeu
02-15-2011, 09:46 AM
Thanks for reaffirming that our current tax rate is too low by 3.5% of GDP, which is a pretty big number.

:spock: You're on an economic illiterate streak this morning. You must just be pulling our legs for kicks.

HonestChieffan
02-15-2011, 09:46 AM
This is a great interactive look at the budget, more detail than I first saw...so ill repost it..http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html?hp

patteeu
02-15-2011, 09:52 AM
Do I *sniff* take this to mean you don't *sniff* like me?

You probably missed it, but The Mad Crapper made a open offer to the entire board that if his critics stopped talking to him, he would stop talking to them. In the aftermath, he quickly rose to become the most popular poster on the entire message board (based on rep points) and even now continues to hold the 3rd spot. You're messing with a board icon now. :)

chiefsnorth
02-15-2011, 10:09 AM
Unemployment still exceeds BHO's worst case scenarios despite his tripling of our debt - and his solution is to push the pedal down to the floor

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 10:10 AM
This was supposed to be the moment we were all waiting for. After three years of historic deficits that have added almost $4.5 trillion to the national debt, President Obama was finally going to get serious about fiscal discipline. Instead, what landed on Congress's doorstep on Monday was a White House budget that increases deficits above the spending baseline for the next two years. Hosni Mubarak was more in touch with reality last Thursday night.

The White House actually touts as tight-fisted a budget proposing a record $1.645 trillion deficit for fiscal 2011, due largely to a new surge in spending to 25.3% of GDP. That's more spending than in any year since 1945. Federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will rise to 75.1% in 2012, which is the highest since 1951 and more than double what it was as recently as 2007. (See the nearby chart.)

This $3.73 trillion budget does a Cee Lo Green ("Forget You," as cleaned up for the Grammys) to the voter mandate in November to control spending. It leaves every hard decision to the new House Republican majority. And it ignores almost entirely the recommendations of Mr. Obama's own deficit commission. No wonder the commission's Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, said Monday that this budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." And he's an ally.

How unserious is this budget? Although the White House trumpets $2.18 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, those savings are so far off in the magical "out years" that you can barely see them from here. More than 95% of the savings would happen after Mr. Obama's first term in the White House is over, and almost two-thirds of the promised deficit reduction would arrive after 2016. Pretending to cut deficits by pushing all real cuts into the future is Budget Flimflam 101.

From hard experience, we know that what matters are the cuts and reforms a White House is willing to make now. The Obama budget doesn't cut a penny from the deficit in the last seven months of fiscal 2011. Over the next three years—through 2013—the spending reductions in this budget add up to a paltry $20 billion net, out of a projected $3.5 trillion deficit. That's a 0.57% reduction in red ink and less than what the feds spend every two days.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144461982648424.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Some updates on the non-existent inflation Bernanke is always talking about...

LONDON (Reuters) - Inflation in Britain rose to double the Bank of England's target in January, increasing pressure on the central bank to raise interest rates despite a fragile economic recovery.

Consumer price inflation surged to an annual 4.0 percent -- its highest in more than two years -- from 3.7 percent in December, official data showed on Tuesday.

On the month, consumer prices rose 0.1 percent. Prices normally fall in January due to post-Christmas discounting.

The rise was driven by higher oil prices and an increase in indirect taxation and was in line with economists' forecasts. Given the tendency of UK inflation to surprise on the upside, some in the market had positioned for an even higher reading, and the pound dipped and gilt prices turned positive after the data.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/UK-inflation-surges-to-double-rb-129594446.html;_ylt=AlV3K3iOB3UlG45PV3_PE4i7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1b2IwOHRpBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBH NsawN1a2luZmxhdGlvbnM-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- U.S. reserves of corn have hit their lowest level in more than 15 years, reflecting tighter supplies that will lead to higher food prices in 2011. Increasing demand for corn from the ethanol industry is a major reason for the decline.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported Wednesday that the ethanol industry's projected orders this year rose 8.4 percent, to 13.01 billion bushels, after record-high production in December and January.

That means the United States will have about 675 million bushels of corn left over at the end of year. .. roughly 5 percent of all corn that will be consumed, the lowest surplus level since 1996.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-corn-reserves-hit-lowest-apf-838199136.html?x=0

patteeu
02-15-2011, 10:12 AM
Unemployment still exceeds BHO's worst case scenarios despite his tripling of our debt - and his solution is to push the pedal down to the floor

There was unemployment during the Bush years too!

chiefsnorth
02-15-2011, 10:34 AM
There was unemployment during the Bush years too!

Yeah, about 1/3 as much.

patteeu
02-15-2011, 10:37 AM
Yeah, about 1/3 as much.

Pretty similar to the deficit spending comparison that some are making. :)

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:46 AM
The deficit issue wasn't nearly as pressing during the Bush years and the president then was at least willing to begin to address the entitlement spending problem but he encountered immediate, fierce resistance from Obama's party.

So....it's similar to the immediate, fierce resistance that the Republicans put up to increased taxes to help fight the deficit? So the President can't fix the deficit solely on his terms. Shocker, that...

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:47 AM
...no, he was the whole Country's guy, just like Obama is now.

find a new angle., this is one boring.

I'm not here to entertain you, surprising as you may find that to be.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:51 AM
:spock: You're on an economic illiterate streak this morning. You must just be pulling our legs for kicks.


Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.

What's 18-14.5?

BTW, I don't advocate setting taxation policy based on any given percentage of GDP, by the way. Taht line was mostly to piss off the moron.

Anyway, I think it's certainly arguable that we are under-taxed federally, which is contributing to our deficit problem. I would gladly agree to cuts in entitlement programs, but I think we need concessions from all sides, which means significant military spending reductions and at least some tax increases.

As I've said repeatedly, balancing the budget on non-military spending is politically impossible, and unwise to boot.

patteeu
02-15-2011, 11:51 AM
So....it's similar to the immediate, fierce resistance that the Republicans put up to increased taxes to help fight the deficit? So the President can't fix the deficit solely on his terms. Shocker, that...

Taxes aren't entitlements, so the similarities are outweighed by the differences in this context. Taxes are related to the short term deficit which is relatively unimportant. Entitlements cause the long term, unsustainable deficit which is the heart of the real problem.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:54 AM
Not according to the so-called Newspaper of Record:

Wow. I hadn't seen that. That is seriously ugly. We need SS reform right now too. Terrific.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:56 AM
You probably missed it, but The Mad Crapper made a open offer to the entire board that if his critics stopped talking to him, he would stop talking to them. In the aftermath, he quickly rose to become the most popular poster on the entire message board (based on rep points) and even now continues to hold the 3rd spot. You're messing with a board icon now. :)

I did miss it.

Wow. His rep mojo is really high. I'll really need to start respecting him and his opinions now.

patteeu
02-15-2011, 11:58 AM
What's 18-14.5?

BTW, I don't advocate setting taxation policy based on any given percentage of GDP, by the way. Taht line was mostly to piss off the moron.

Anyway, I think it's certainly arguable that we are under-taxed federally, which is contributing to our deficit problem. I would gladly agree to cuts in entitlement programs, but I think we need concessions from all sides, which means significant military spending reductions and at least some tax increases.

As I've said repeatedly, balancing the budget on non-military spending is politically impossible, and unwise to boot.

Tax revenues have fallen from an average of 18% to the current 14.5% of GDP, not tax rates. These revenues have fallen primarily because of an economic slump (including a high rate of unemployment), not because of rate reductions. The most important thing we can do to improve the deficit situation is improve the economy and get people back to work, not raise rates or cut defense. The second most important thing we can do to improve the long term debt situation is address entitlements, not raise rates or cut defense.

BTW, I'm OK with raising rates, but the rates that should be targeted are rates on wages in the bottom tax brackets that apply to everyone, not rates on investment income or rates on the upper brackets. I'd simultaneously eliminate tax loopholes. This is in line with the Bowles/Simpson recommendations to a great degree.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 11:59 AM
Taxes aren't entitlements, so the similarities are outweighed by the differences in this context. Taxes are related to the short term deficit which is relatively unimportant. Entitlements cause the long term, unsustainable deficit which is the heart of the real problem.


Yeah....no.

I do agree that entitlements, when they become fixed and immutable, cause serious long term problems if they are constantly growing at unsupportable rates or other factors (often demographic) change to make them unsupportable.

But to look at one side of the ledger and say "there's the problem, let's fix it over there" when it's essentially politically impossible is pretty short-sighted to me. Would you rather fix the problem, or let the problem linger because it can't be fixed exclusively "your" way.

The military spending is also a complete joke, as I've also said many times, but nobody wants to acknowledge that either. It's all about entitlements. Ok....

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2011, 12:00 PM
...Politics at its best. Make someone else propose what needs to be done then demonize them for votes.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_budget

S.O.P. from politicians on both sides of the aisle. I'm surprised anyone is surprised anymore.

patteeu
02-15-2011, 12:03 PM
Yeah....no.

I do agree that entitlements, when they become fixed and immutable, cause serious long term problems if they are constantly growing at unsupportable rates or other factors (often demographic) change to make them unsupportable.

But to look at one side of the ledger and say "there's the problem, let's fix it over there" when it's essentially politically impossible is pretty short-sighted to me. Would you rather fix the problem, or let the problem linger because it can't be fixed exclusively "your" way.

The military spending is also a complete joke, as I've also said many times, but nobody wants to acknowledge that either. It's all about entitlements. Ok....

If we can't agree on the real problem we'll probably have trouble fixing it. Taxes, defense spending, and discretionary spending can all be a part of the solution, but first we must agree that entitlements are the primary source of the long term problem and that must be the centerpiece of any grand compromise solution, IMO.

Donger
02-15-2011, 12:05 PM
If we can't agree on the real problem we'll probably have trouble fixing it. Taxes, defense spending, and discretionary spending can all be a part of the solution, but first we must agree that entitlements are the primary source of the long term problem and that must be the centerpiece of any grand compromise solution, IMO.

The real problem is spending more than they take in. It's so f*cking basic that it makes my head hurt.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 12:06 PM
Tax revenues have fallen from an average of 18% to the current 14.5% of GDP, not tax rates. These revenues have fallen primarily because of an economic slump (including a high rate of unemployment), not because of rate reductions. The most important thing we can do to improve the deficit situation is improve the economy and get people back to work, not raise rates or cut defense. The second most important thing we can do to improve the long term debt situation is address entitlements, not raise rates or cut defense.

I realize that the reduction is in revenues, not rates.

But part of the reason for the reduction in revenues is Bush's tax cuts from 2001/02.

Here's a link to help.

Remember WAAY back in 2000 when we were trying to figure out what to do with a surplus? We were at 20% of GDP in terms of tax revenues. Partly because of a booming economy, of course, but a booming economy means the PIE is growing also. It's relative to GDP after all.

And then Bush comes in, the dot com bubble hits, and we lopped 4% off and we're at 16.2% of GDP by 2003. So in 3 years we go from 2% above historical average (and running surpluses) to 2% below and running deficits.

We uptick back to the average (but still has massive deficits becuase there's no control on the spending side) and the economic collapse results in a collapse in revenues also.

While I agree that military cuts or tax increases are a bad idea when the economy is emerging from recession, they both need to be on the table to fix our long term, structural deficit woes.

BTW, I'm OK with raising rates, but the rates that should be targeted are rates on wages in the bottom tax brackets that apply to everyone, not rates on investment income or rates on the upper brackets. I'd simultaneously eliminate tax loopholes. This is in line with the Bowles/Simpson recommendations to a great degree.

I'm fine iwth increasing the tax base, but we are significantly below average, historically speaking, in taxing at the upper end of the brackets as well. Whether this is an increase in nominal rate or an effective increase by eliminating tax loopholes, I'm pretty ambivalent.

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 12:08 PM
If we can't agree on the real problem we'll probably have trouble fixing it. Taxes, defense spending, and discretionary spending can all be a part of the solution, but first we must agree that entitlements are the primary source of the long term problem and that must be the centerpiece of any grand compromise solution, IMO.

Good luck getting consensus on that. It will never happen.

Donger
02-15-2011, 12:10 PM
Some choice left responses to Obama's plan:

"Proposing even more tax breaks for Wall Street banks while slashing and burning necessary government programs is right-wing radicalism, and no Democratic president should be part of it," the group said in a statement.

"The budget proposal from President Obama is right from the Republican plan," Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a Democrat from Obama's home state of Illinois said in a statement. "As the president, he should be the last line of defense for the most vulnerable Americans, instead of the first one to cut."

patteeu
02-15-2011, 12:17 PM
I realize that the reduction is in revenues, not rates.

But part of the reason for the reduction in revenues is Bush's tax cuts from 2001/02.

Here's a link to help.

Remember WAAY back in 2000 when we were trying to figure out what to do with a surplus? We were at 20% of GDP in terms of tax revenues. Partly because of a booming economy, of course, but a booming economy means the PIE is growing also. It's relative to GDP after all.

And then Bush comes in, the dot com bubble hits, and we lopped 4% off and we're at 16.2% of GDP by 2003. So in 3 years we go from 2% above historical average (and running surpluses) to 2% below and running deficits.

We uptick back to the average (but still has massive deficits becuase there's no control on the spending side) and the economic collapse results in a collapse in revenues also.

While I agree that military cuts or tax increases are a bad idea when the economy is emerging from recession, they both need to be on the table to fix our long term, structural deficit woes.



I'm fine iwth increasing the tax base, but we are significantly below average, historically speaking, in taxing at the upper end of the brackets as well. Whether this is an increase in nominal rate or an effective increase by eliminating tax loopholes, I'm pretty ambivalent.

I've bolded a key phrase in your post. Tax revenues are below average as a fraction of GDP because of the economy, not because of the rates.

We could probably find some middle ground on the tax situation as long as you aren't going to insist on taking it out of the upper brackets with top marginal rate increases.

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 12:57 PM
I realize that the reduction is in revenues, not rates.

But part of the reason for the reduction in revenues is Bush's tax cuts from 2001/02.



ROFL

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/po7J0f5TMrQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/po7J0f5TMrQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 01:52 PM
I've bolded a key phrase in your post. Tax revenues are below average as a fraction of GDP because of the economy, not because of the rates.

We could probably find some middle ground on the tax situation as long as you aren't going to insist on taking it out of the upper brackets with top marginal rate increases.

I do think that the ultra-wealthy are taxed at a low rate, historically speaking, and would like to see a higher marginal rate for income above something pretty absurd -- say $10MM.

But I don't object to widening the base either, whether that's by eliminating some loopholes or lowering thresholds or both.

chiefsnorth
02-15-2011, 03:24 PM
You guys need to chill. Remember, they've been telling us all along that Obamacare is going to help us fix the deficit because it's deficit-neutral and will "rein in costs"

stevieray
02-15-2011, 05:06 PM
I'm not here to entertain you, surprising as you may find that to be.

:rolleyes:

this isn't about me. it's about deflecting and barking out Bush, when "your guy" takes criticism. You prolly liked to tell others to quit talking about Clinton when Bush was in office.

The Mad Crapper
02-15-2011, 07:36 PM
I'll begrudgingly award the president a few style points for his almost prideful shamelessness, particularly when he labeled his plan "responsible" and "sustainable." Some of his fellow liberals have employed rather different descriptors: To wit, "Remarkably weak and feeble" (Dana Milbank), and "A massive pile of fiscal bulls--t" (Andrew Sullivan).

The president doubled down on his revenue/outlay fantasy during the Q&A: "By The Middle Of This Decade Our Annual Spending Will Match Our Annual Revenues,” he said. This is simply false. The numbers, via Senate Republicans:

2010: Receipts: 2,163 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 3,456 [Billion Dollars]

2011: Receipts: 2,174 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 3,819 [Billion Dollars]

2012: Receipts: 2,627 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 3,729 [Billion Dollars]

2013: Receipts: 3,003 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 3,771 [Billion Dollars]

2014: Receipts: 3,333 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 3,977 [Billion Dollars]

2015: Receipts: 3,583 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 4,190 [Billion Dollars]

2016: Receipts: 3,819 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 4,468 [Billion Dollars]

2017: Receipts: 4,042 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 4,669 [Billion Dollars]

2018: Receipts: 4,257 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 4,876 [Billion Dollars]

2019: Receipts: 4,473 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 5,154 [Billion Dollars]

2020: Receipts: 4,686 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 5,422 [Billion Dollars]

2021: Receipts: 4,923 [Billion Dollars] / Outlays: 5,697 [Billion Dollars]


Did I say "via Senate Republicans"? I meant directly from the White House website. Even an average second-grader could eyeball those numbers and determine that projected tax receipts never match outlays. In this case, the president is asking the public to ignore not only its own intuitions and Republican admonitions, but his administration's own (likely overly rosy) statistics. Only in a pure fact vacuum can he spin this fictional tale of fiscal responsibility, "winning the future," or whatever the slogan du jour may be.

The president also said that by implementing his budget proposal, the federal government "will not be adding more to the federal debt." Wrong again. Transcendently, epically wrong:


President Barack Obama on Monday will propose a federal budget for fiscal 2012 that would pare back record budget deficits, but still add nearly $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, White House officials said Sunday. [The final projected number is actually $7.2 Trillion]


When pressed by NBC's Chuck Todd to justify his refusal to implement any significant elements of his own debt commission's results, Obama chastised the media for its "impatience." Impatience? In what conceivable sense is it "impatient" for Americans to expect a president who convened a commission for the explicit purpose of dealing with the looming debt crisis to actually adopt at least some of its recommendations in his next ten-year fiscal road map? Not to worry, though -- the president assured Todd that his commission had "changed the conversation" and helped establish a "framework" for some hypothetical, future "serious conversations" on the issue. Like Todd, I was under the distinct (and apparently misguided) impression that the bipartisan presidential debt commission was that serious conversation. Silly me.

At its core, today's presidential performance was unsettling more than anything. Either Obama (a) knowingly and brazenly misled the American people on more than one occasion, (b) is mired in a dangerous state of denial, or (c) is even more oblivious to the gravity of our nation's financial disrepair than even his harshest critics have alleged.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/02/15/obama_defends_budget_proposal,_lies_repeatedly

http://www.moonbattery.com/poor-barry.gif

googlegoogle
02-15-2011, 09:38 PM
GREECE

The Mad Crapper
02-16-2011, 08:09 AM
http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0930_O_SHIT.jpg

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 08:37 AM
ken eny uv de knswervitv W supprtrs xplen y et wuz kinswervtv fur W tu pork out en outsped Jimmy Catta, but wen O dos et et es nut kniswurvitv...???

patteeu
02-16-2011, 10:06 AM
As hard as it is to believe, your posts are getting worse, LaDairis. That's quite an accomplishment. FYI, I don't even bother reading posts that aren't written in something close to English and I doubt if I'm the only one, so carry on if meaningless online masturbation is your thing.

The Mad Crapper
02-16-2011, 10:07 AM
http://www.iaza.com/work/110217C/iaza14781926072900.jpg