Obama's Budget

#101
#101
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...


The Dems and Obama put themselves out there last summer with the grand deal. By all accounts, Boehner was close to signing on.

And then Cantor reminded him of who's boss.
 
#102
#102
milohimself said:
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.


It buys Valtrex, which fixes that.
Click to expand...

valtrex is a suppressant. even though you can't see the warts, herpes is forever.
 
#106
#106
rjd970 said:
I freely admit that I am not an expert, but it seems like he is trying to relieve some tax burden on the middle class while addressing the deficit.

Right, wrong, or indifferent...his intentions are in the right spot. I'm not sure it has anything to do with punishing the "rich".
Click to expand...

do what? We know, empirically, roughly what government receipts will be, regardless of the tax structure. We know what it will pay for. We know exactly what it won't pay for. The problem isn't on the income side. The problem is on the vote buying side.
 
#107
#107
BeecherVol said:
Im sure thats what it would work out to in the end.
Click to expand...


Something of that magnitude admittedly would start in broad strokes. But we are at that magnitude, so guess what?




BigPapaVol said:
do what? We know, empirically, roughly what government receipts will be, regardless of the tax structure. We know what it will pay for. We know exactly what it won't pay for. The problem isn't on the income side. The problem is on the vote buying side.
Click to expand...


Huh? If capital gains and investment income were taxed as ordinary income the deficit and the debt would be much smaller than they are.
 
#108
#108
lawgator1 said:
Something of that magnitude admittedly would start in broad strokes. But we are at that magnitude, so guess what?







Huh? If capital gains and investment income were taxed as ordinary income the deficit and the debt would be much smaller than they are.
Click to expand...

Giving the government more money when the checkbook hasnt balanced in years is a disaster (probably not strong enough) waiting to get worse.

You having nothing to hang your hat on that says increased taxes will not be offset by increased spending. Which given our current status is not breaking even.
 
#109
#109
BeecherVol said:
Giving the government more money when the checkbook hasnt balanced in years is a disaster (probably not strong enough) waiting to get worse.

You having nothing to hang your hat on that says increased taxes will not be offset by increased spending. Which given our current status is not breaking even.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the tried and true "they overspent, so no more tax dollars even if its part of a grand bargain to end this madness" line.

Glad to have you on the board, Mr. Norquist.
 
#110
#110
lawgator1 said:
Something of that magnitude admittedly would start in broad strokes. But we are at that magnitude, so guess what?







Huh? If capital gains and investment income were taxed as ordinary income the deficit and the debt would be much smaller than they are.
Click to expand...

maybe you struggle to understand the give and take of tax income, regardless of ilk, but we can expect a generally fixed amount of GDP to be remitted as tax income. If we go gangbusters and blow it out in tax revenue for a couple of years by jacking them through the roof, the piper will be paid in the long run and in a large way.

I agree that income is income and should be treated as such, but let's not be silly and assume that the gov't taking more is going to increase total receipts.
 
#111
#111
lawgator1 said:
Ah yes, the tried and true "they overspent, so no more tax dollars even if its part of a grand bargain to end this madness" line.

Glad to have you on the board, Mr. Norquist.
Click to expand...

so, Obama's idiotic budget line item that shows $230 billion per year of "war savings" (that we borrowed in the first place) being moved to highway spending is a good thing? IMO, it absolutely supports austerity.
 
#112
#112
BigPapaVol said:
maybe you struggle to understand the give and take of tax income, regardless of ilk, but we can expect a generally fixed amount of GDP to be remitted as tax income. If we go gangbusters and blow it out in tax revenue for a couple of years by jacking them through the roof, the piper will be paid in the long run and in a large way.

I agree that income is income and should be treated as such, but let's not be silly and assume that the gov't taking more is going to increase total receipts.
Click to expand...
generally agree but if I get back on a computer later, theres a compelling set of evidence that shows this isn't necessarily true in the short term.
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
Ah yes, the tried and true "they overspent, so no more tax dollars even if its part of a grand bargain to end this madness" line.

Glad to have you on the board, Mr. Norquist.
Click to expand...

Grand bargain to end the madness?

You believe or assume that it solves the problem. I don't. If you have some proof of government efficiency with tax dollars and budgets, Im all ears. You won't, so I doubt I will take your word or theirs that throwing more money in the pool will stop the leak.

Both sides (disregarding the public servant aspect of elected officials) have pissed on their responsibilities in the wake of surviving the next election. I assume by your comments that you trust the government (Rs and Ds) with even more money. I don't.
 
#114
#114
BeecherVol said:
Giving the government more money when the checkbook hasnt balanced in years is a disaster (probably not strong enough) waiting to get worse.

You having nothing to hang your hat on that says increased taxes will not be offset by increased spending. Which given our current status is not breaking even.
Click to expand...

Obama is proposing a $90b tax increase on energy
producers and we all know who will foot the bill for
that, the American people.

If we buy the energy directly we will pay more,
anything we buy will cost more and some business
will just close and move to a country where they
can obtain cheaper energy, and that will mean more
unemployment.

The following does a good job of reflecting the
proposed budget.

From Zerohedge:

2013%20Defense%20Medicare.jpg




5618396956_e544f0a9bf.jpg
 
#115
#115
lawgator1 said:
Four trillion in debt reduction, with something like a 3-to-1 ratio between cuts and tax increases.

Boehner didn't LOL when Cantor smacked him on the nose with a newspaper.
Click to expand...

You conveniently forget that Obama changed the bargain at the last minute. Truth is, he didn't want it for the same political reasons that Rs balked.
 
#117
#117
My bad. Didn't catch it on the cellular, but the returns seem to be effective for 3-5 years IIRC, just not in the long run, as you mentioned.
 
#118
#118
So the budget proposes taxing dividends for individuals over $200K and for households over $250K at regular marginal rates (39.6% proposed).

There's also the ObamaCare surtax on these people that will come in of 3.8%.

The current dividend rate of 15% will go to 43.4%! Almost a 3x rise.

Anyone wanna bet that if this looks to go through people will start dumping their dividend paying stocks for non-dividend stocks or tax-sheltered investments?
 
#119
#119
volinbham said:
So the budget proposes taxing dividends for individuals over $200K and for households over $250K at regular marginal rates (39.6% proposed).

There's also the ObamaCare surtax on these people that will come in of 3.8%.

The current dividend rate of 15% will go to 43.4%! Almost a 3x rise.

Anyone wanna bet that if this looks to go through people will start dumping their dividend paying stocks for non-dividend stocks or tax-sheltered investments?
Click to expand...

all in the name of fairness
 
#120
#120
volinbham said:
So the budget proposes taxing dividends for individuals over $200K and for households over $250K at regular marginal rates (39.6% proposed).

There's also the ObamaCare surtax on these people that will come in of 3.8%.

The current dividend rate of 15% will go to 43.4%! Almost a 3x rise.

Anyone wanna bet that if this looks to go through people will start dumping their dividend paying stocks for non-dividend stocks or tax-sheltered investments?
Click to expand...

Obama wouldn't be proposing anything close to these hikes if he thought this budget had a prayer of being passed.
 
#121
#121
volinbham said:
So the budget proposes taxing dividends for individuals over $200K and for households over $250K at regular marginal rates (39.6% proposed).

There's also the ObamaCare surtax on these people that will come in of 3.8%.

The current dividend rate of 15% will go to 43.4%! Almost a 3x rise.

Anyone wanna bet that if this looks to go through people will start dumping their dividend paying stocks for non-dividend stocks or tax-sheltered investments?
Click to expand...

Obama's budget proposal was dead before the ink dried.
 
#122
#122
Gramps said:
Obama's budget proposal was dead before the ink dried.
Click to expand...


Of course - interesting though what he put in the ink and that he thinks 43.4% on dividends will help the economy.

Will be interesting to see what Dems agree with that rate of taxation. My guess is none or few will say it publicly.
 
#123
#123
Paul Ryan Tees Off on Obama’s Fraudulent Budget | Power Line

And it breaks the President’s promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. As ABC News reported, this budget “does not come close.”
We’ve heard a lot of excuses from this administration for why the President broke his promise. But what we haven’t heard is any semblance of accountability.
To the best of my knowledge, no one in the White House has taken responsibility for this failure.
Instead, we’ve gotten a blame game that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Jack Lew, your former boss, claimed that the reason Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over 1,000 days is that the Republicans have threatened to filibuster.

This is simply false. As Mr. Lew surely knows, budget resolutions cannot be filibustered. They can be passed with a simple majority.
The real source of dysfunction in the Senate comes from members of the President’s own party, who have been unwilling – for almost three years now – to go on record in support of his budgets, or to pass budgets of their own.
Click to expand...

democrat apologists like LG should take note of the bit in bold
 
#124
#124
Heard Obama in an interview just yesterday address the spending issue. Paraphrasing, he stated that the plan to cut the deficit in half occured before it was realized just how deep the economy would sink. He now believes the deficit must be addressed long term but the most important issue was maintaining growth and recovery; therefore, major cuts would have to wait.

IMO, that's a comprehensible strategy, not one I agree with since I find the current issue of the deficit, with evidence supported by the European crisis, to be more important. That regardless of the economic impact of lost government jobs (both gov't and contracted work, which is big), which I don't think will be friendly, it is necessary, as well as reform to most government programs.

The problem I have is that we are running a $1.33T (plus) deficit without any real short term stimulus in there. That means, we have flat out too many bills, which is scary. I know simplified, but if I looked at my budget and saw that my income didn't match my outcome because of a vacation, or funiture, or bar hopping, short term expenditures, then I could live with that since I could change it up fairly easy. But if I looked at it and saw, that my rent, electric, car, etc.. were more than my income, then that would be a serious issue that I couldn't readily fix. Most of our budget is long term commitments to military, medicare, SS, entitlements, etc. That's unhealthy.

Also, as bham mentioned earlier, there's a point of disagreement on whether claiming Keynesian spending during a recovery but also raising taxes. By putting that in there, he is stating that he believes that the proposed tax on that population won't impact recovery. I don't care, but I do know that it won't really effect this deficit all that much.
 
#125
#125
volinbham said:
Of course - interesting though what he put in the ink and that he thinks 43.4% on dividends will help the economy.

Will be interesting to see what Dems agree with that rate of taxation. My guess is none or few will say it publicly.
Click to expand...

isn't he just buying votes by saying that's what he wants, knowing that there is no way in hell anyone in congress can side with him?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top