PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obamas big Tax and Spend Plan. DOA


HonestChieffan
02-12-2012, 09:18 AM
Failure begets more failure.


Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate

By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10

President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.

As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.

Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.

The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.

To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits.

Obama’s budget also calls for new investments in education, manufacturing and federal research and development, and it would devote an additional $350 billion to boosting economic growth. That sum includes extending a temporary payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits through the end of the year. Both are scheduled to expire at the end of this month and are currently the focus of intense debate in Congress.

The president’s plan would push this year’s deficit above current projections, with the budget gap growing to $1.33 trillion — slightly higher than last year’s $1.3 trillion deficit and $200 billion more than congressional budget analysts recently projected for the fiscal year that ends in September.

The deficit would fall to $900 billion in 2013, and government borrowing would continue to slow through 2022, leaving the debt elevated by historic standards but no longer growing faster than the overall economy.

Senior administration officials said the blueprint offers a balanced approach that would protect the middle class while asking for greater sacrifice from the most fortunate. Every dollar in tax increases would be matched with $2.50 in spending cuts, they said, counting $1 trillion in previously adopted cuts to agency budgets.

Republicans immediately attacked the higher deficit figures, noting that Obama had failed to achieve his 2009 goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

“This unserious budget is a recipe for debt, doubt, and decline,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said in an e-mail. “It would make our economy worse by imposing massive tax increases on small business and still pile up enormous debt that stirs greater economic uncertainty.”




Next month, House Republicans plan to offer a more austere fiscal blueprint that rejects tax increases, preferring to stabilize borrowing by making deep cuts to government services, including Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. Like last year’s GOP budget, it will call for repealing Obama’s initiative to expand health coverage for the uninsured while ignoring calls for short-term economic stimulus.

Aides say they expect House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to make one significant adjustment: replacing his plan to wholly privatize Medicare for new retirees in 2021 with a new privatization strategy that would preserve the 47-year-old federal health program — making the budget less vulnerable to partisan attack.

The GOP presidential candidates have largely embraced Ryan’s cuts-only vision, often tacking on more dramatic reductions. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said Friday that he would raise the eligibility age for Social Security, which is currently on track to hit 67. And former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has called for immediate cuts in Social Security benefits, rejecting the more common approach of protecting current retirees and people older than 55.

Meanwhile, Romney, Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich are calling for massive tax cuts that even some Republicans worry could make it tough to reduce borrowing.

“I’ve become very concerned about deficits,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. “Clearly tax reform should help us create economic growth. But I don’t know that we can, at this point in time, expect to have any significant tax cuts that adversely impact the deficit.”

Both Obama and Ryan will map strategies for saving at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade that would eliminate the threat of across-the-board cuts scheduled to hit next January. But nobody is counting on either plan to be adopted.

House appropriators say they will use the president’s request as a starting point for agency spending bills. But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who is battling to maintain control of the Senate, announced earlier this month that he would not stage a vote on a full budget plan this year.

In addition to being messy, divisive and pocked with political land mines for vulnerable incumbents, a budget vote is unnecessary, Reid said, because legislation adopted during last summer’s showdown over the federal debt limit set spending levels for 2013 agency budgets.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told reporters. “We already did that.”

Republicans blasted Reid’s decision as irresponsible and politically driven, noting that a full-blown budget debate would require Senate Democrats to decide whether to accept or reject Obama’s tax increases and perhaps outline a vision for reining in spending on Social Security and Medicare, popular but expensive programs that are projected to drive future borrowing. Obama and congressional Democrats have said they would be willing to revamp the programs, but only if Republicans drop their objection to higher taxes on the rich.

Despite the ideological impasse, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he will take another stab at drafting a long-term plan that could tame the debt and garner bipartisan support.

“What are the odds? The odds aren’t good. But we have to try,” Conrad said, noting that many senators are eager for a “break-the-glass” blueprint that could be implemented quickly if a political consensus — or a new economic crisis — were suddenly to emerge.

“It’s absolutely imperative that we have plans on standby,” he said, “in case, God forbid, something were to happen.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

La literatura
02-12-2012, 10:03 AM
I asked you about the home mortgage deal in a previous thread, wanting to know your thoughts on the overall plan.

HonestChieffan
02-12-2012, 10:15 AM
I asked you about the home mortgage deal in a previous thread, wanting to know your thoughts on the overall plan.

Overall plan? There is no overall plan. The DOJ got their money. They did what was asked, go after the banks for a political statement. Nothing has been done to fix the government side of the issue, as expected. Home prices continue in the crapper. And the end result will be that new home buyers in the future will face substantial hurdles before any bank will offer a loan unless they are forced to do the same bullshit again.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 10:32 AM
Good. Congressional Republicans are doing their jobs. This won't happen if Willard or Santorum is president. The spending will continue and so will the wars.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 12:02 PM
Good. Congressional Republicans are doing their jobs. This won't happen if Willard or Santorum is president. The spending will continue and so will the wars.

You do realize the war in Iraq is already over and we are planning to pull out of Afghanistan within the next year. What other wars do we have? Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to make sure the problem isn't solved while protecting tax cuts for the richest Americans that have cost over $800 billion so far. Republican candidates want to add to corporate welfare by keeping tax breaks in place for corporations that don't even pay taxes and by cutting out capital gains and inheritance taxes that only effect the richest Americans to any extent.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 03:05 PM
You do realize the war in Iraq is already over and we are planning to pull out of Afghanistan within the next year. What other wars do we have? Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to make sure the problem isn't solved while protecting tax cuts for the richest Americans that have cost over $800 billion so far. Republican candidates want to add to corporate welfare by keeping tax breaks in place for corporations that don't even pay taxes and by cutting out capital gains and inheritance taxes that only effect the richest Americans to any extent.

I've read that these withdrawals may be that the troops are needed for an attack on Iran and/or to protect them when we do attack Iran. The troops from Iraq were moved to Kuwait....possibly to protect them 'cause the Shia's who were put in power in Iraq might harm them when and if we attack Iran. We're inside Syria agitating via our CIA, Mossad and British M-16, while those who are attacking current govt are targeting Christians. We may even go into Syria before we do Iraq. Obama bombed Libya and now has troops in Africa. So what are you trying to say? Seems that Obama is a warmonger and military spender too.

Also, Obama is also a corporatist as he supported bailouts for the banks and big auto.

Pluhease! The differences are minor.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 03:50 PM
I've read that these withdrawals may be that the troops are needed for an attack on Iran and/or to protect them when we do attack Iran. The troops from Iraq were moved to Kuwait....possibly to protect them 'cause the Shia's who were put in power in Iraq might harm them when and if we attack Iran. We're inside Syria agitating via our CIA, Mossad and British M-16, while those who are attacking current govt are targeting Christians. We may even go into Syria before we do Iraq. Obama bombed Libya and now has troops in Africa. So what are you trying to say? Seems that Obama is a warmonger and military spender too.

Also, Obama is also a corporatist as he supported bailouts for the banks and big auto.

Pluhease! The differences are minor.

Bailouts, started by Bush.
Iraq, started by Bush.
Afghanistan, started by Bush
100 troops in Africa, please.
Iran, no troops yet. Obama is not on the forefront of calling for a military escalation there. He is trying to defuse the situation and prevent Israel from escalating.
Troops in Kuwait less costly as the security concerns are lesser there than in a hostile Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Arab league has requested UN troops to Syria, not US, and they are calling to sever ties with the current government.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Bailouts, started by Bush.
Iraq, started by Bush.
Afghanistan, started by Bush
100 troops in Africa, please.
Iran, no troops yet. Obama is not on the forefront of calling for a military escalation there. He is trying to defuse the situation and prevent Israel from escalating.
Troops in Kuwait less costly as the security concerns are lesser there than in a hostile Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Arab league has requested UN troops to Syria, not US, and they are calling to sever ties with the current government.

UN Troops = US troops. We have no business dealing with Syria. We are only causing more problems for ourselves.

Israel is a sovereign nation, and should be able to do what it feels is necessary for its own national security.

petegz28
02-12-2012, 04:54 PM
Bailouts, started by Bush.
Iraq, started by Bush.
Afghanistan, started by Bush
100 troops in Africa, please.
Iran, no troops yet. Obama is not on the forefront of calling for a military escalation there. He is trying to defuse the situation and prevent Israel from escalating.
Troops in Kuwait less costly as the security concerns are lesser there than in a hostile Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Arab league has requested UN troops to Syria, not US, and they are calling to sever ties with the current government.

I would argue that Afghanistan was started by the Taliban.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 07:00 PM
UN Troops = US troops. We have no business dealing with Syria. We are only causing more problems for ourselves.

Israel is a sovereign nation, and should be able to do what it feels is necessary for its own national security.

Miopic point of view. We are leaders of the free world. If we turn our heads when despots kill their own countrymen, then we need to give up the mantle.

Israel wanted to take repraisals for the scud attacks during the first gulf war which would have torn our coalition apart. Any arguments we should have let them? For Israel to stir up a hornet's nest in Iran that we would have to clean up, its in our national interests to get them to do the prudent thing.

suzzer99
02-12-2012, 11:26 PM
Miopic point of view. We are leaders of the free world. If we turn our heads when despots kill their own countrymen, then we need to give up the mantle.

You mean like Syria right now?

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 11:32 PM
Bailouts, started by Bush.
Iraq, started by Bush.
Afghanistan, started by Bush
100 troops in Africa, please.
Iran, no troops yet. Obama is not on the forefront of calling for a military escalation there. He is trying to defuse the situation and prevent Israel from escalating.
Troops in Kuwait less costly as the security concerns are lesser there than in a hostile Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Arab league has requested UN troops to Syria, not US, and they are calling to sever ties with the current government.

Irrelevant.

•Obama had a surge in Afghanistan.
•Obama did not remove troops from Iraq when he said he would. They've only moved to Kuwait.
•Obama has codified into law some bad things Bush did regarding detentions.
•Obama repealed Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus and pushed for that language in the NDAA.
•Obama assassinates people.
• I could give a rats ass about what the Arab League requests from the UN because it means our guys. Obama says he takes his orders from the UN and NATO which is disgusting.
I do agree that Obama is trying to diffuse Iran but that may be for the election. Let's hope he isn't doing it for that reason, but there is still stuff going on in Iran that we're doing. There are still unusual military movements regarding Iran in the Gulf.
• Obama is much worse on civil liberties than Bush and wants to go after the internet; as contributing to the increasing militarization of local police even giving them drone. Drones! Obama has not undone anything that the Bushies passed. No repeal of Patriot Act. NADA!
• Obama has spent way too much money. So much so, that taxing the rich ain't going to fix it. When I hear tax the rich, it usually winds up on the middle-class because there's more of us. Well, it's declining but usually.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 11:37 PM
Miopic point of view. We are leaders of the free world.
Who elected us to do that? No one. Where does the US Constitution grant this authority? It doesn't. Gee, you sound like a NeoConservative Republican.

If we turn our heads when despots kill their own countrymen, then we need to give up the mantle.
No, that's just what we get told. You are hopelessly progressive...a progressive hawk it seems.
Again, you sound like a NeoConservative Republican. No wonder you defend Obama's mission of seeking " monsters to destroy."

Israel wanted to take repraisals for the scud attacks during the first gulf war which would have torn our coalition apart. Any arguments we should have let them? For Israel to stir up a hornet's nest in Iran that we would have to clean up, its in our national interests to get them to do the prudent thing.
I don't think PGWI was a necessary or a Constitutional war and it has it's own lies for getting us involved but that's another thread and I've already done it. This war, though, due to it's subsequent bases left on Muslim Holy LANDS, has led to our current terrorism problem due to blowback. Terrorism came into America during the 1990's while we increased our bases in the ME in other areas too.

Quit being a pesky, meddlesome and nosy busy-body. We have plenty of our own problems to solve here.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 11:42 PM
You do realize the war in Iraq is already over and we are planning to pull out of Afghanistan within the next year.
Ya, uh-huh! Iraq is in a civil war which will burst at the seams when we leave.
How about that gigantic embassy we built there that is the size of the Vatican?
We're gonna maintain some control with that monstrosity there.

Now about that Bush crony who got control of Iraq oil in a sweetheart deal. Crony capitalism.
Same in Libya, where western interests have taken hold of the oil. Crony socialism.
Honey, this is mercantilism that's really behind these wars. Obama is just a puppet.

Not a dimes worth of difference.

greg63
02-13-2012, 01:54 AM
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO2eh6f5Go0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO2eh6f5Go0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

blaise
02-13-2012, 07:28 AM
I think that's pretty close to ripping off the Simpsons.