Obama's Budget

[lawgator1]

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.

I will say this for the upteenth time -- I want there to be spending cuts, and in many of the same areas you do, too. I want us on a road to full financial solvency.

I just think that, to get there, we have to stop fighting over these fudged numbers, false accusations about the Bush tax cuts, these long range forecasts that change dramatically month over month, etc.

And both sides do it, I am well aware. Its just that right now the POTUS is a Dem and so the loyal opposition is bound and determined to unelect him, in part with alarmist yet bogus claims about the specifics of what he would do.

We are almost at a point where we need to turn the whole damn thing over to binding arbitration.

 

[utvolpj]

in part with alarmist yet bogus claims about the specifics of what he would do.

how is it bogus when he's put it in writing and repeated it to the American people?

 

[lawgator1]

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.

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.

I like that idea that one fellow had: lower the top rate to 28 % but treat all income the same, regardless of source.

What was his name again? Oh, yeah, Ronald Reagan.


(Thanks to fellow who posted that above earlier).

 

[Gramps]

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.

True.
The left use one set of assumptions and comes up with 4T in savings.
The right uses another set of assumptions and comes up with a 7 T deficit.

In reality neither side knows what the outcome is.

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.

I agree.
Obama's plan has zero chance to pass the House. Ryan's plan will have zero chance passing the senate.
Bottom line.... We are being screwed by both Dem and GOP.

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.

Obama will hit the rich and the GOP will fight for a while like they did the payroll tax then cave in.
I posted on here several months ago that all Obama had to do was let the Bush Tax expire. I saw on TV this morning that is the plan.
Obama will sell this to the public if the GOP does not go along with extending the Bush Tax on everyone but the top wage earners then they will be increasing taxes on 98% of the people . The GOP will cave in and pass an extention with increases on those making $250K plus.
The $250K number may not be the exact number but it will pass. It is an election year. The GOP will not take the blame for a tax increase on 98% of the people.

 

[volinbham]

True.
The left use one set of assumptions and comes up with 4T in savings.
The right uses another set of assumptions and comes up with a 7 T deficit.

Where I disagree is that the assumptions are the same and they are all Obamas. Under their assumptions, we will run deficits for the next 10 years and that total will be around 7T. What they point out is that if the changes proposed in this budget are not enacted then the total would be 4T higher (hence reducing the debt by 4T).

It's not two sets of assumptions - it's one set that is unrealistic.

Not to get too deep into the weeds, the 4T becomes more suspect because 1T was already baked (mandated upcoming changes) in so if we did nothing different it would still be down 1T with no "new" changes. Further, another 1T comes from "war savings" but likewise those are already baked in from previous agreements.

I agree overall that the only truth is that these projections or whatever Rs come up with are guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[rjd970]

I like that idea that one fellow had: lower the top rate to 28 % but treat all income the same, regardless of source.
What was his name again? Oh, yeah, Ronald Reagan.


(Thanks to fellow who posted that above earlier).

I could get on board with this and I don't see what the big deal is....other than the fact that,

...if a dem proposes it, the R's will oppose

and

if a R proposes, the dems will oppose.

 

[volinbham]

I could get on board with this and I don't see what the big deal is....other than the fact that,

...if a dem proposes it, the R's will oppose

and

if a R proposes, the dems will oppose.

Would be interesting to see what happens to cost of capital under this scenario.

 

[TXA&M07]

Lol @ the words "Obama" and "budget" in the same sentence.

 

[volinbham]

I will say this for the upteenth time -- I want there to be spending cuts, and in many of the same areas you do, too. I want us on a road to full financial solvency.

I just think that, to get there, we have to stop fighting over these fudged numbers, false accusations about the Bush tax cuts, these long range forecasts that change dramatically month over month, etc.

And both sides do it, I am well aware. Its just that right now the POTUS is a Dem and so the loyal opposition is bound and determined to unelect him, in part with alarmist yet bogus claims about the specifics of what he would do.

We are almost at a point where we need to turn the whole damn thing over to binding arbitration.

My point was that the 4T claims are as bogus as the 7T claims - if one is wrong; both are wrong.

 

[volinbham]

how is it bogus when he's put it in writing and repeated it to the American people?

That's the point - Obama is the one projecting the huge run up in debt over ten years. These are his numbers with his assumptions. If he's going to talk about the saving part he has to acknowledge the debt increase part that he is projecting.

If it's incorrect to mention the debt increase then it is likewise incorrect to tout the "savings".

 

[milohimself]

Why is anybody even close to taking this seriously? Whoever wrote this thing had to have known it would be DOA before the first sentence was written. The house isn't going to pass anything Obama sends in. Doesn't matter if it's a budget or a piece of paper saying "vote 'yea' if the sky is blue."

So, knowing that, he could have at least made the budget look a little more serious, and I'm not necessarily talking about taking a hard swing at the deficit (though it would be nice), either; broader tax reform, some crafty entitlement reform, even a few percentage points. Something.

And then, as mentioned, Paul Ryan will write up a plan that will get things back in order, but too hard, too fast and with too many immediate entitlement cuts for it to ever have any hope of passing the senate.

They should move DC to Vegas, Circus Circus would be a much more appropriate home for all of this.

 

[lawgator1]

Why is anybody even close to taking this seriously? Whoever wrote this thing had to have known it would be DOA before the first sentence was written. The house isn't going to pass anything Obama sends in. Doesn't matter if it's a budget or a piece of paper saying "vote 'yea' if the sky is blue."

So, knowing that, he could have at least made the budget look a little more serious, and I'm not necessarily talking about taking a hard swing at the deficit (though it would be nice), either; broader tax reform, some crafty entitlement reform, even a few percentage points. Something.

And then, as mentioned, Paul Ryan will write up a plan that will get things back in order, but too hard, too fast and with too many immediate entitlement cuts for it to ever have any hope of passing the senate.

They should move DC to Vegas, Circus Circus would be a much more appropriate home for all of this.

No one is claiming that this document is other than a template for negotiations and, of course, for presidential election politics.

I dare you to find one in the last 30 years that wasn't the same.

 

[utvolpj]

I dare you to find one in the last 30 years that wasn't the same.

hope and change right? Maybe the Pres will get serious when things really get tough

 

[volinbham]

You left out the Senate's role/non-role. Reid will not allow the president's budget to come up for vote because he knows not even the Dems would vote for it. In addition, he will not propose a counter budget either.

Sure I'm biased but the Rs in the House will be the only group proposing any structural change for the deficit and they will be crucified for it.

There is no leadership in Washington.

 

[volinbham]

No one is claiming that this document is other than a template for negotiations and, of course, for presidential election politics.

I dare you to find one in the last 30 years that wasn't the same.

Hold on there - it is NOT common practice for the Senate to abdicate it's role in proposing a budget.

 

[milohimself]

You left out the Senate's role/non-role. Reid will not allow the president's budget to come up for vote because he knows not even the Dems would vote for it. In addition, he will not propose a counter budget either.

Sure I'm biased but the Rs in the House will be the only group proposing any structural change for the deficit and they will be crucified for it.

There is no leadership in Washington.

If they come up with something other than hard and fast austerity that does little in the way of defense cuts, I will be shocked.

 

[milohimself]

You left out the Senate's role/non-role. Reid will not allow the president's budget to come up for vote because he knows not even the Dems would vote for it. In addition, he will not propose a counter budget either.

Sure I'm biased but the Rs in the House will be the only group proposing any structural change for the deficit and they will be crucified for it.

There is no leadership in Washington.

I don't disagree that the house GOP will be the only ones with a plan to bring the budget back in order, but we know what it will probably look like based on previous plans.

I think that most people, myself included, recognize that Obama's budget and the senate are not serious enough about reigning in spending, but we also want to think there is a happy medium between kicking the can down the road and burning the whole thing to the ground.

 

[vols4sure]

If they come up with something other than hard and fast austerity that does little in the way of defense cuts, I will be shocked.

Trying to cut the rate of growth is "hard and fast austerity."

They are not proposing measures resulting in us spending less than the year before. They are simply proposing things in which the growth in spending will be less than the traditional growth.

 

[dreVol]

money fixes everything

not herpes

 

[volinbham]

I don't disagree that the house GOP will be the only ones with a plan to bring the budget back in order, but we know what it will probably look like based on previous plans.

I think that most people, myself included, recognize that Obama's budget and the senate are not serious enough about reigning in spending, but we also want to think there is a happy medium between kicking the can down the road and burning the whole thing to the ground.

Generally agree with this except the characterization in the last phrase.

 

[Weezy]

I don't think Bowles-Simpson is perfect, but I wish they would just grab it and pass it. That would be too simple though.

 

[lawgator1]

You left out the Senate's role/non-role. Reid will not allow the president's budget to come up for vote because he knows not even the Dems would vote for it. In addition, he will not propose a counter budget either.

Sure I'm biased but the Rs in the House will be the only group proposing any structural change for the deficit and they will be crucified for it.

There is no leadership in Washington.

If they'd include allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top two tiers to expire, I bet you that there would absolutely be an opening for real discussion.

But Norquist won't let them. So just fantasy anyway.

 

[volinbham]

If they'd include allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top two tiers to expire, I bet you that there would absolutely be an opening for real discussion.

But Norquist won't let them. So just fantasy anyway.

They meaning the House? What about the Senate? What if they agreed to any smidgen of real entitlement reform or tax code reform?

Here's a crazy thought - what if the Senate simply put on paper what they recommend?

A two-way street means two-way street. Both sides are obstructionist and Obama is showing zero leadership on this.

 

[milohimself]

Trying to cut the rate of growth is "hard and fast austerity."

They are not proposing measures resulting in us spending less than the year before. They are simply proposing things in which the growth in spending will be less than the traditional growth.

Yeah, the president's plan curbs growth, but it doesn't address any of the warnings from the credit ratings agencies. My guess is that the GOP plan will be a balanced budget in year one.

not herpes

It buys Valtrex, which fixes that.

 

[milohimself]

Generally agree with this except the characterization in the last phrase.

If the GOP plan ends up including serious defense cuts as well as serious tax reform that results in net gained revenue (doesn't have to be anything crazy, either) then I will change my tune.