Obama Budget Speech

#51
#51
tvolsfan said:
Ghandi's non violent approach to independence may not have been the greatest thing for India, too.
Click to expand...

It surely would not have worked at any other time in history, either.

The British military was spread very thin after WWII and the British subjects were calling to bring their boys home.
 
#52
#52
therealUT said:
It surely would not have worked at any other time in history, either.

The British military was spread very thin after WWII and the British subjects were calling to bring their boys home.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think a normal revolution may have been better for India in the first place.
 
#53
#53
therealUT said:
Would that be the same Ghandi who decided that his work was done in S. Africa after he fought for more rights for Indians (not for Africans) and then bolted?

Or, would it be the Ghandi who decided that Indians deserved independence from the British, yet the caste system was just fine?
Click to expand...

Maybe I was thinking about the Gandhi who never reconciled with his brother.

Or maybe it was just a phrase no one would have trouble reading too much into and everyone would understand?

And, after all, I said veer left....
 
#54
#54
utgibbs said:
Maybe I was thinking about the Gandhi who never reconciled with his brother.

Or maybe it was just a phrase no one would have trouble reading too much into and everyone would understand?

And, after all, I said veer left....
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You would have been better served had you said "left of Thoreau". None of us would have questioned the presumption that you spent a copious amount of time alone in the backwoods.
 
#56
#56
therealUT said:
Would that be the same Ghandi who decided that his work was done in S. Africa after he fought for more rights for Indians (not for Africans) and then bolted?

Or, would it be the Ghandi who decided that Indians deserved independence from the British, yet the caste system was just fine?
Click to expand...

This is going off topic, but that might be reaching into the realm of religion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
Redstater said:
View attachment 37970

It's spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Click to expand...
It's not a spending problem or a revenue problem, it's a set of problems.

Opinion: Unsustainable budget threatens nation - 10 ex-chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisers - POLITICO.com

It is tempting to act as if the long-run budget imbalance could be fixed by just cutting wasteful government spending or raising taxes on the wealthy. But the facts belie such easy answers.
Click to expand...

The culture of everybody in this country picking "winners" and "losers" out of debate, and the tendency to cite the ONE course of action needed to solve issues is usually incorrect and always troublesome.
 
#60
#60
milohimself said:
This is going off topic, but that might be reaching into the realm of religion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't think many of us are shy about doing that :)

The caste system is wrong. Thus, I find their religion to be wrong.

Of course, what is new?
 
#61
#61
I was gratified to see him get back on the tax-the-wealthiest train. The reality is that we have to make some major cuts to spending, but the current tax system is so tilited towards mainpulation by the wealthiest that it is inevitable that there be serious backlash against it. Got to cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Got to reform the tax code to reduce the tax dodge strategies, particularly on pure investment income. And got to repeal the Bush tax cuts. That's the formula for success in balancing the budget.
 
#62
#62
utgibbs said:
Hmmmmmm:

us_rev_fed_type_100.png


Not sure those ad-valorem revenues have changed too much over time.

And they don't have a big impact anyway.

On the other hand, major revenues from income....

And droski has once again proven to be a major supporter of utgibbs themes.
Click to expand...

Are you effing kidding me? Freaking ad valorem? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, ever?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
droski said:
increased capital gains payments are only a hundred billion dollar difference from 1992 (in inflation adjusted, probably means 120 bill otherwise). chicken feed right?
Click to expand...
And that ignores all the capital gains lumped into ordinary income because people figured out how to do it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
On the cover of the issue of Bloomberg Businessweek I have sitting downstairs:

"How to pay no taxes"

The article is basically about how to dodge your way into netting no taxes if you have a s**tton of money.
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
I was gratified to see him get back on the tax-the-wealthiest train. The reality is that we have to make some major cuts to spending, but the current tax system is so tilited towards mainpulation by the wealthiest that it is inevitable that there be serious backlash against it. Got to cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Got to reform the tax code to reduce the tax dodge strategies, particularly on pure investment income. And got to repeal the Bush tax cuts. That's the formula for success in balancing the budget.
Click to expand...

According to some we did. Thats the most ridiculous part of this whole fiasco.

At this point, Obama is running for re-election, hes not gonna propose cuts that might piss of the base that got him elected.
 
#66
#66
BeecherVol said:
According to some we did. Thats the most ridiculous part of this whole fiasco.

At this point, Obama is running for re-election, hes not gonna propose cuts that might piss of the base that got him elected.
Click to expand...

At some point, an immovable force is going to have to meet an unstoppable object.

Raises in taxes revenue (and in taxes from nearly all) as well as cuts in government spending are going to have to happen. Republicans call proposed Democrat tax hikes draconian while Democrats call proposed Republican cuts draconian. Both have to happen.
 
#67
#67
BeecherVol said:
According to some we did. Thats the most ridiculous part of this whole fiasco.

At this point, Obama is running for re-election, hes not gonna propose cuts that might piss of the base that got him elected.
Click to expand...


Totally agree the cuts we've made aren't a drop in the bucket.

In tough times past, we've grown our way out of a significant part of any accumulated debt. The combination of the depth of this low down, the prolonged recovery period to come out of it, and the ease with which some of our best sources of productivity is so easily sent overseas, will make that option almost undoable.

We are going to have to come to grips with the fact the only way out is a combination of cuts and tax increases. The latter can occur by increasing the rate or cutting into the tax dodge strategy.

Reality is that the wealthiest who manage to get these breaks will never let them be taken away, so it will probably have to be an increase in gross rates. That sounds a lot worse than "closing loopholes," but its probably only effective way to capture more revenue.
 
#68
#68
IMO. The biggest obstacle is politicians. Your creating, and balancing or blowing up budgets with someone else's money. When you have to ability to "take" more by passing new tax rates it makes it easier to spend more than is needed. In this case catastrophic amounts.

To me, If Im spending someone else's money and the math does not add up to balanced, I make cuts before I even consider sticking my hand back out.
 
#70
#70
BigPapaVol said:
Are you effing kidding me? Freaking ad valorem? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, ever?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You got debunked a few pages back, BPV. So, yeah, I know what I'm talking about - always.

And now you are looking a little fuzzy in your area of interest.
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
I was gratified to see him get back on the tax-the-wealthiest train. The reality is that we have to make some major cuts to spending, but the current tax system is so tilited towards mainpulation by the wealthiest that it is inevitable that there be serious backlash against it. Got to cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Got to reform the tax code to reduce the tax dodge strategies, particularly on pure investment income. And got to repeal the Bush tax cuts. That's the formula for success in balancing the budget.
Click to expand...

You've got a lot right, LG. However Social Security is just fine (especially without the Congressional pick-pockets). There is a major problem with runaway health care costs, but there is also a real world solution to that as well.

Defense (+war) and the privatized penal system (+law enforcement) is where the real money is. The reason the current discussion in DC is completely unserious, and is rather another attempt to divert wealth from the poor and middle class to elite economic power, is exactly what is not happening with these pots of money.

The Ryan budget is Class War, plain and simple.

1. Simple, Transparent, and Progressive tax code.
2. Return to the pre-Reagan tax brackets (as droski has proven, tax rates do not affect wealth creation)
3. Slash defense + war + penal budgets
4. Single payer health care to reel in spiralling costs / put money back into the middle and lower classes.

This would be real politics, and this would truly address the budget problems. But of course, real politics we don't have in this country.
 
#73
#73
it's sad people still believe what this man is shoveling. Cut the spending and the revenues are fine. But of course too many view big gov't as a solution so it makes sense why they feel the need to tax the "rich". No wonder we're in this hole :disappointed:
 
#74
#74
Can't improve on the multi Pulitzer prize winning WSJ editiorial page ...

The Presidential Divider
Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt..

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

***
The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.


Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan's plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It's hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
 
#75
#75
utgibbs said:
You got debunked a few pages back, BPV. So, yeah, I know what I'm talking about - always.

And now you are looking a little fuzzy in your area of interest.
Click to expand...
No you don't and you disnt debunk either point. Capital gains went trough the roof and everyone that could make them ordinary income for a better rate did so. Don't kid yourself into thinking you have any idea what you're talking about or that the graph you gave was anything beyond worthless.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top