Obama's Budget

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
He was running for office. Just like he is now.

I'm sure he'd like to see the tax code changed to tax investment income just as ordinary income, but he knows it will never pass.

His proposal now doesn't even do that. It just chips away at it a little bit, just as GOP budget proposals shift the burden for cuts a bit disproportionately on the poorer, who aren't their constituency.
Click to expand...


You are dodging the issue here LG. The statements made during a campaign have just as much veracity as words spoken in the first year of a term. Obama's desire to "even the income scale" is well documented.

So what is a fair tax for all us regular folks?
 
#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
I think both are more fair than what we have. I think the bottom class should pay something -- I agree with conservatives on that. I'd get rid of the tax breaks and replace that with an ultra low tax for dollar one.

But I also don't think the very top pay enough when it is investment or capital gains and when it is a shell game, like it has been, to count it as something else.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. I personally prefer a national sales tax. If the illegally gain and unreported income was tapped, it would allow a much lower rate in the end.
 
#53
#53
Headed For Home said:
I can agree with this. I personally prefer a national sales tax. If the illegally gain and unreported income was tapped, it would allow a much lower rate in the end.
Click to expand...


Every proposal I have ever seen for a national sales tax DRAMATICALLY shifts the overall tax burden to the lower and middle classes.

I get the argument as to its simplicity, but 1) moving from what we have now to that seems harsh on the bottom classes; and 2) I do not think it is practical, politically or otherwise.

I think taxing at ultra low rates for the bottom makes sense, and I like the idea, posted above, of lowering the top rate and treating all income the same. I also don't think that is likely to pass, either.
 
#54
#54
In addition to the tax aspect (which is a bandaid at best), the budget has new stimulus components that coincidently direct money to union-based parts of the economy (hiring teachers, firefighters, police; upgrading schools, etc.)

Zero entitlement reform, massive deficits, goodies for supporters and increased taxes for the people not paying their "fair share". Nice work Mr. President. At least you put it on paper, something the Senate has been unwilling to do for three years.

Oh yeah, the proposed budget adds $7 trillion to the debt (nearly a 50% increase).

We Are Screwed
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
Well, first, I've said here many times I would end corporate income tax and require all corporate net revenues to be passed to taxpayers for purposes of tax accounting.

Second, as is documented here many times, including by conservatives, everyone knows that the corporations aren't paying nearly as much tax as you'd be led ot believe if you just looked at the rate. See e.g. GE paying nada in a recent year.

Third, you could always make that argument because even those paid by an employer as salary are ultimately getting their dollars from the revenues of the company.

Thus, your argument is totally invalid.
Click to expand...

No you typically leave out facts when trying to push the idea that fixing the country's economic problems (is caused by and) should be fixed by those that cover the check now. All in the name of keeping a seat in government.

That's valid. You won't see it that way, but that has become evident over the years.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
In addition to the tax aspect (which is a bandaid at best), the budget has new stimulus components that coincidently direct money to union-based parts of the economy (hiring teachers, firefighters, police; upgrading schools, etc.)

Zero entitlement reform, massive deficits, goodies for supporters and increased taxes for the people not paying their "fair share". Nice work Mr. President. At least you put it on paper, something the Senate has been unwilling to do for three years.

Oh yeah, the proposed budget adds $7 trillion to the debt (nearly a 50% increase).

We Are Screwed
Click to expand...

Summer of recovery. 2012 edition.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
In addition to the tax aspect (which is a bandaid at best), the budget has new stimulus components that coincidently direct money to union-based parts of the economy (hiring teachers, firefighters, police; upgrading schools, etc.)

Zero entitlement reform, massive deficits, goodies for supporters and increased taxes for the people not paying their "fair share". Nice work Mr. President. At least you put it on paper, something the Senate has been unwilling to do for three years.

Oh yeah, the proposed budget adds $7 trillion to the debt (nearly a 50% increase).

We Are Screwed
Click to expand...

I wish there was spending reform, too.

I am less critical of spending you so casually refer to as targeted to unions because pretty much any infrastructure plans, such as building, will have some union component.

And building schools doesn't really translate so readily to teacher unions. I think that's a bit of a reach by you.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
I wish there was spending reform, too.

I am less critical of spending you so casually refer to as targeted to unions because pretty much any infrastructure plans, such as building, will have some union component.

And building schools doesn't really translate so readily to teacher unions. I think that's a bit of a reach by you.
Click to expand...

No reach - the school building will be union or wage-protected jobs (must pay prevailing union wages); just like in the stimulus plan. Guarantee a substantial portion will go to unions.
 
#60
#60
volinbham said:
In addition to the tax aspect (which is a bandaid at best), the budget has new stimulus components that coincidently direct money to union-based parts of the economy (hiring teachers, firefighters, police; upgrading schools, etc.)

Zero entitlement reform, massive deficits, goodies for supporters and increased taxes for the people not paying their "fair share". Nice work Mr. President. At least you put it on paper, something the Senate has been unwilling to do for three years.

Oh yeah, the proposed budget adds $7 trillion to the debt (nearly a 50% increase).

We Are Screwed
Click to expand...

Union_Label_Obama_2.png


2.jpg


obama_entitlement_drug_dealer_2012.jpg




Gramps said:
How does a 3.8 trillion dollar budget add 7 trillion dollars to the debt?
Click to expand...

He's talking about the socialist ten year plan to add $7t.

He proposes to add over a trillion the first year which makes it look like the $7t is just another big lie.

1000-days-without-passing-budget.jpg
 
#61
#61
Gramps said:
How does a 3.8 trillion dollar budget add 7 trillion dollars to the debt?
Click to expand...

It's a 10 year budget. The claim of reducing the deficit by a total of 4 T is based the 10 year impact of this year's proposed changes over 10 years.
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
It's a 10 year budget. The claim of reducing the deficit by a total of 4 T is based the 10 year impact of this year's proposed changes over 10 years.
Click to expand...

That explains it.

I thought you just took the "proposed" 3.8 tril +/- and multiplied it by 2 to get the "actual" amount that will be spent.
 
#64
#64
BeecherVol said:
That explains it.

I thought you just took the "proposed" 3.8 tril +/- and multiplied it by 2 to get the "actual" amount that will be spent.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is much more fun to be alarmist and pretend that there will be no change in the metrics over the next ten years, and no other budgets, and no other changes, so you can claim his budget will add $ 7 trillion to the debt by 2022.

No one sees right through that.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
Yes, it is much more fun to be alarmist and pretend that there will be no change in the metrics over the next ten years, and no other budgets, and no other changes, so you can claim his budget will add $ 7 trillion to the debt by 2022.

No one sees right through that.
Click to expand...

and no one sees through the assumptions made to reach his numbers either. The BLS is going to be getting some major bucks to make that work
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
Yes, it is much more fun to be alarmist and pretend that there will be no change in the metrics over the next ten years, and no other budgets, and no other changes, so you can claim his budget will add $ 7 trillion to the debt by 2022.

No one sees right through that.
Click to expand...

Like the budget saves $4T? You can't have it both ways - savings over 10 years don't count unless debt accumulation does as well.

So let's look at 1 year - the span of the budget. $1.3T deficit.
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
Yes, it is much more fun to be alarmist and pretend that there will be no change in the metrics over the next ten years, and no other budgets, and no other changes, so you can claim his budget will add $ 7 trillion to the debt by 2022.

No one sees right through that.
Click to expand...

Im sure there will be changes. It will probably end up more like 10 tril. +/-
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
Like the budget saves $4T? You can't have it both ways - savings over 10 years don't count unless debt accumulation does as well.

So let's look at 1 year - the span of the budget. $1.3T deficit.
Click to expand...

Really with the way they draw up numbers, that is the only way for me to look at it, what was the actual deficit in that year. And if you really need to judge a president, what was the deficit his last year, did he balance it? Otherwise, too much gets passed around. It's not completely accurate, but neither is putting out numbers for 10 years and counting it as cuts with built in revenue increases and optimistic unemployment projections.
 
#73
#73
Let's face it. This isn't a serious budget. It is a campaign tool. Ryan will put out the R version and while it will look much closer to the Debt Commission recommendations and ideals that Obama himself said he supported (major tax reform; entitlement reform) Obama will use it as a foil against his candy and ice cream proposal.

The problem with the Ryan plan is that it will look too harsh and will not hit the "rich" enough.
 
#74
#74
If Obama wants to hit the rich, it's not that hard, add another step at the Capital Gains rate (or just set them back to 1997 rates) and remove carried interest. You can still simplify the tax code, reduce corporate rates, and all that junk. It can still be simplified even with progressive levels.

But we also need to be honest that the tax revenues from this will be minor in relation to the deficit he's proposing, which is the real problem.
 
#75
#75
Weezy said:
If Obama wants to hit the rich, it's not that hard, add another step at the Capital Gains rate (or just set them back to 1997 rates) and remove carried interest. You can still simplify the tax code, reduce corporate rates, and all that junk. It can still be simplified even with progressive levels.

But we also need to be honest that the tax revenues from this will be minor in relation to the deficit he's proposing, which is the real problem.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not a Grover Norquist; no new taxes guy.

The other bit of dishonesty is the "millionaires and billionaires" talk when the majority of tax filers that will get hit are not in this group. Between the changes to cap gains, dividends in particular, and marginal rates starting at $200K (single filer) - most of those feeling the hit will not be "the rich".

On that last note you can't say on one hand we can't cut spending now because it will impact the recovery but then say raising taxes on this group won't impact the recovery at all. I'd say households making under $500K will see substantial increases in taxes and that will impact their spending.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top