E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhite House Chief of Staff Jack Lew discusses the importance of combining tax cuts with spending cuts.
President Obama’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year, FY2013, was delivered to Congress on Monday.
Obama proposes that millionaires pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent and projects a budget deficit of $901 billion in FY2013, representing 5.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), down from $1.33 trillion, or 8.5 percent of GDP this year, White House officials say.
But that deficit forecast assumes that Congress will allow income tax rates on people earning more than $250,000 a year to increase at the end of this year, an outcome that seems highly unlikely, given congressional Republicans' opposition to the idea.
Obama's budget blueprint requests over $800 billion in spending over several years on transportation infrastructure and economic stimulus programs. "We can't just cut our way into growth," Obama said at a community college in Virginia Monday as he made the case for his budget proposal.
What’s the purpose of this proposal and how much effect will it have in an election year? Here’s a guide to what you’ll see on Monday:
To what year does this proposal apply?
Monday’s budget presents Obama’s proposals for the fiscal year which begins on Oct. 1, Fiscal Year 2013.
Are the spending numbers in the president’s budget blueprint the ones that Congress will eventually enact in FY2013?
Not necessarily, but Stan Collender, a former staffer for both the House and Senate Budget Committees, said, “Ninety-five percent of what any president proposes in his budget is noncontroversial,” so the spending numbers he spells out in his proposal will usually be close to what Congress eventually spends.
Of course, if Obama proposes to spend $3 billion in FY2013 on the National Park Service and the House committee chairman with jurisdiction over the Park Service wants to spend only $2.8 billion, in the end the chairman may get his way.
In effect, the budget is Obama’s chance to spell out what he’d do if he had a free hand, and how he’d propose to pay for his new initiatives.
The president will use his budget blueprint to put specific dollar numbers on the cost of proposals he unveiled in his State of the Union address three weeks ago. He proposed, for instance, a new tax incentive for manufacturing and another one for “clean energy.”
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew tells NBC's David Gregory the Republican Party has blocked the Senate from passing a budget in the past three years.
But some of what Obama has proposed in his past budgets has never been enacted. In his first budget in 2009, Obama assumed that, from 2012 to 2019, the Treasury would collect more than $645 billion in revenue from the government auctioning off carbon emissions permits to companies. But that idea died in the Senate in 2010.
Is Congress required to vote on Obama’s proposal?
No. In fact it might be politically preferable for some Democrats up for re-election this November to not vote on any Obama budget proposal for a tax increase. So don’t expect that the proposals in the Obama budget blueprint will be voted on in Congress.
Congress is supposed to adopt its own annual budget resolution, which sets the framework within which Congress considers revenue-raising legislation and spending bills, but for the past two years Congress has been unable or unwilling to pass a budget resolution.
What about mandatory spending, such as Medicare or retirement benefits for federal workers? Can Obama’s budget proposal raise or lower those mandatory spending numbers?
The president could propose changes in spending on Medicare, for instance, but it would require legislation by Congress to change the structure or financing of that program, something that looks unlikely in an election year.
For the most part, spending on the mandatory programs is driven by the basic design of those programs (who’s eligible to get benefits), by demographics (how many Americans are age 65 or older, and thus qualify for Medicare), and by the cost of the services the government purchases – for example, the cost of coronary artery bypass surgery for an 70-year old man.
In his budget, is the president likely to revive some of the ideas he proposed last September when he sent a deficit reduction package to the House-Senate “super committee” – ideas such as requiring upper-income retirees to pay more for their Medicare benefits?
Yes, said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I think the president is still looking to put forward a plan that includes substantial deficit reduction. Asking higher earners to pay more for Medicare is one of those areas with potential for bipartisan support and one of those areas I think the presidential will include in his budget.”
Does 2012 being a presidential election year change anything about Obama’s budget proposal?
It might. Since the proposal applies to the fiscal year which begins on Oct. 1, 2012 and ends on Sept. 30, 2013, he would not get a chance to try to enact his plans if he loses the November election.
But with November in mind, Obama’s budget blueprint is a chance for him to define for voters his ideological differences with the Republicans.
“Every budget proposal is partly a serious policy document and partly a political statement,” Collender said. Given that this is an election year, “this budget proposal will be much more a campaign document” than in a non-election year.
Leave a Comment:
Dont worry YOU will be next.
Fear not 1%, the GOP will never let a tax increase on the millionaires and billionaires pass.
After all, the government controls the people and wall street controls the government.
9 more months! will we survive? can we do it?
Bravo Mr. President, Finally some one in the Democratic party grows a spine and stands up for working and middle class Americans.
Let the GOP scum vote against raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans while the middle and working Classes suffer, they will pay for it at the Voting booth.
Americans are sick and tired of being screwed by the rich and powerful, if the Dems do not start to stand up to the GOP scum we will end up going down the path of Greece with angry mobs in the streets!
Why does President Obama continue to propose budgets that have no chance in hell of passing? Where are the environmentalisrs talking about the waste of paper?
I say let ALL of the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire and stop spending for 5 years. Then we'll see where we are.
spg64 - I am an American and I am sick and tired of being screwed by the progressive/liberals. I am very glad that the GOP is standing up against this President and his failing policies. Why don't you lefties suggest that Harry Reid maybe encourage the democrats to put a budget out there for us to see? He is one chicken sh*t man. President Obama's budgets have been rejected by his own party so many times it might be a good idea for his partry to offer some alternative measures.
Let us do the voting and we'll get the tax law on the wealthy passed through without any difficulty and without loopholes, too.
Just because the rate has been increased doesn't mean the loopholes needed to pay less have been removed. Read between the lines people. Obama could make the wealthy pay more without an increase in taxes just by removing loopholes, but is he doing that?
Many who make it over the $1 million mark are small business owners. Taxing them will help small businesses hire more employees how?
Independent
We elect our representatives to do our voting for us. Sometimes they get it right. Currently I am happy with the direction things are going. If we can continue the shellacking in November things will be even better.
Ridiculous. Bill Gates didn't become a billionaire by stuffing his million dollar a year salary under his mattress. Capital Gains is where the money is made. And, those 19% of wage earners who aren't paying income tax but should need to be included in the repealing the Bush tax cuts.
spg64,
How will rasing taxes more on the rich help the middle class? How will that assist their suffering? If you reduce the amount htose with money have to spend, it never ends well for the economy, and will likely increase suffering. So those GOP "Scum" may actually be voting in your best interest. And after all, the rich already pay most of the taxes now. This being the case , why is there suffering?
How are the rich screwing Americans? By offering predatory lending mandated by the government? I am sure none of the banks wanted to offer subprime loans on thier own. The bundling and packaging of these notes in addition to the terms of the notes were a direct result of the substandard quality of the loan. They had to be bundled to hide what the debt was, as it was bad on paper and no one would buy it outright. And the terms matched what was needed to cover the risk of lending to a risk.
The problems in Greece are well on their way here. Angry mobs will ensue. You realize the angry mobs are due tot he governement spending the people into bankrupcty while promising entitlements and pensions that could not be met. You realize the deficit spending they employed for years lead to this? You realize it is social programs offered by the government with no way to pay for them are forcing the harse auterity measures? The people are in a fools protest, as they protest no longer being able to get the freebies and handouts from the governement as there is no money to pay for them and the credit card has been maxed out. The out of control deficit spending will have this same scenario on our streets soon enough. But it will be due to the Dems continuing the path of destruction. And they can propose raiusing taxes on the rich all they want. Even if these taxes were to pass and make the taxation system even more unfair that it is right now, it will not be enough to slow the build of debt. And eventually we will be Greece.
But the blind who see the GOP as scum are unable to be convinced. They believe the Dems are for the middle class. That they will end thesuffering by spending offering unemployment extensions, and social program expansion. That they can continue to block energy exploration and extraction domestically. That they can save the environment and stick it to the evil among us who have had success. And that money to do all this truely does grow on trees.
You need to examine the Greece situation. Get familiar with it. Because their failure is due to the exact sceanrio above. And it was liberal policies that brought them to this point. And there is no hope for recovery there.
Your praise for Obama is misplaced, as his actions will be the undoing of this country. And your blind support for such action demonstrates that his followers will not listen to reason.
ABO 2012
Let's see, the RHETORIC is that Obama wants to raise income taxes on millionaires. Of course, the term millionaires refers to accumulated net worth and not necessarily income. Income taxes in our country are not based on net worth.
Then, there's the REALITY, taxes will be raised on incomes for those over $250,000 per year ! Tell that to the Catholic family in Boston, MA with 6 children, three of whom want to go to Harvard. One or more of them will be denied because the all-powerful, the all-knowing imperial potentate Obama has decided your dad is not paying his fair share.
Barack Obama has forgotten that he was not elected God.
Meanwhile, ASSUMING these tax increases go through .... what will the budget shortfall be ? Will it be $1.3 trillion according to another news source ?? Does Obama even CARE about anything other than his re-election ???
This following part of the article perfectly explains the Obama presidency. Everything he does is for political gain, not what's best for the country. He's not serious at all. If he were, we wouldn't be reading about this type of crap. It's always about re-election with Obama; it always has been. Me, me, me, me....
"Is Congress required to vote on Obama’s proposal?
No. In fact it might be politically preferable for some Democrats up for re-election this November to not vote on any Obama budget proposal for a tax increase. So don’t expect that the proposals in the Obama budget blueprint will be voted on in Congress."
Sadly, JH, the GOP is the Governmental Oligarch Party. Bought and paid for by the plutocrats who control US and international corporations, they are trying to hollow out the government and profit from providing the services the governmnent once supplied to the people.
They are no longer satisfied with making bids and competing for government contracts. They want free access to our tax money. And the lawmakers they have bought are doing everything they can to make sure it happens.
With our government -- intended to be of, by and for the people -- we can vote the people who make the rules in and out. With corporations in charge, we would no longer have any say whatsoever.
Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" is even more insidious than Gingrich's Contract on America. ("Protection" as in the Mob stereotype --We won't kill you if you will go along with letting us extort you.) And look who signed that pledge. Most, if not all, Congressional Republicans.
We are all -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- being screwed by the part of the 1% that stands to profit greatly by the policies the Republicans in Congress are trying to foist upon us.
Look who's throwing granny off the cliff now?! All you seniors that have done well and saved, don't need medicare to pay your bills right? He wants to penalize the successful and give the money to the system suckers who vote for him.
Nothing about the pipeline in the infrastructure. Instead all is about road construction as if that helps the 90% of unemployed who don't do such work. Of course it will all be going into union coffers. Where is the call for fair share from the almost 50% who pay no taxes - a sizeable number of whom make over $100,000. And of course, there is the class warfare item that will not tax any of the iondolent rich but only those who invest in the economy or run small businesses - those with incomes of over a million, not those living on trust funds that contain millions but pay out in ways to stay under the radar.
Look to everything Obama does these days to be about re-election while America be damned.
Well said dsd!! The big question is what is the incentive for people to succeed? Used to be a person told themselves "with hard work I can succeed". Now the next generation says "it's not fair someone has more than me - I DESERVE some of that!!". Meanwhile those that "have" find it is no longer worth risking their capital if in the worst scenario they lose it all and the BEST scenario is they succeed but the gvmt takes an unreasonable amount and give to those who don't want to work.
Remember people, in the late 1800's to the mid 1900's people came to America as the "Land of Opportunity" risking EVERYTHING they had for just the CHANCE to succeed. Many came with only the closes on their back an a small bag but yet STILL willing to take that risk. They worked two and three jobs to survive. They saved up a little money and bought or rented a small space. Worked 100 hours a week to make their little store survive. Business picked up and sales continued so they bought a second and third location.
We USED to look at those type of people (entrepreneurs) with respect and being admirable - now our economy looks at an entrepreneur with disdain and hatred. How DARE they try to succeed, work hard, risk their lives and capital, and make the rest of the country look bad. They only are successful due to their greed - right? WRONG!! This country was FOUNDED on the principle of hard work and risk. Risk equals reward. You don't PUNISH those that risk and take their reward!! Otherwise why "risk" at all? The answer is they won't. It has already started and is why our country just isn't recovering. There is a fear in the business community about what this current president's regime is planning and when there is uncertainty in business then businesses "wait".
Didn't know there were that many millionaire commentators here. Either that, or some right wing dingbats who don't understand the basics of self preservation - if you're not a millionaire yourself, money getting taxed out of millionaires is money not getting taxed out of *you* :D
Just above this article was the one that said "Athens rioters burn 45 buildings". What do you think is going to happen here when the "Market" is no longer in denial about the fact that we are bankrupt and decides NOT to lend us anymore money?
We are heading for the same depression that the Greeks are in right now, we need to let ALL tax cuts expire and cut spending and we also need to have FAIR trade with other countries, this is just the start. If we don't make the changes very soon we will have our own people burning our own buildings.
there has not been a budget approved for the last 2 years, they will not adopt this one either; we have been existing on emergency declarations , with no real budget plan , we are a ship without a heading.
From what I have read, one big problem in Greece is that the majority of their citizens did not pay the taxes that they owed. AND the government did not even try to collect those taxes due. So Paul saying that he will eleminate personal taxes completely is wierd. If the government has no income taxes(US and Greece) there is no government.
For BOTH parties....It's all about getting re-elected,instead of doing the right thing for the country.....let ALL the Bush/Obama tax cuts EXPIRE...do away with the "payroll tax cut"..(a nice way of saying let's not put any money in the bank to pay for social security)...Have Obama STOP pandering to niche voters,and STOP kicking the can down the road on ANYTHING just to get re-elected.....Maybe BOTH parties in congress and the senate can stop looking at the calender to the next election,and DO something to get an approval rating higher than Herpes.........Wouldn't it be great(and functional) if voting was done on ISSUES,and there were no parties???.....Just working for a common goal????????.............Neverland..............A truely disgusted U.S.Army Disabled Veteran
"President Obama's budget proposal for the next fiscal year, FY2013, will be delivered to Congress on Monday."
How about passing and signing a 2012 Budget, Obama?
Oh, I forgot, he didn't pass and sign a 2011 Budget either, or a 2010 budget.
What seems to be the problem?
ProBusiness, YEP!
I'm so sick of Obama and the idiot democrats misrepresenting what the problem is with the taxes.
If you believe Obama, rich people have a lower income tax rate than poor people. This is NOT the case.
The reason many rich people pay an effective lower rate is that profits from investments are taxed at a lower rate than standard income.
The solution is simple. Income is income, no matter where it comes from. Treat it all the same.
It doesn't matter if you make $30,000 or $3,000,000 a year. Lots of people make part of their income from investments. Why do these people get a better tax rate than Joe American collecting wages?
It has nothing to do with the rich. It has to do with investors paying a lower rate then the rest of us. Sure lots of rich people make most of their money from investments. But there are lots of people that make their money on the stock market that earn a more average yearly income. None of these people deserve to pay a lower percentage than the rest of us.
Khalid
What if I'm just a lowly American working for a yacht builder? My boss tells me that if another yacht isn't ordered in the next couple of months I am out of a job? What if a millionaire is talking with his friend and is telling him that he can't afford a new yacht because he is going to have to send 30% to the tax man? How does that help me? The millionaire has already contributed more of his money to the tax coffers than I have and i appreciate him for doing so. Not to mention how much I appreciate his buying a nice product that Americans build. I should tell John Kerry to buy American also. Then he should not hide his yacht from the tax man. But that's another matter isn't it?
I would prefer that the millionaire keep as much of his hard earned money and go out and buy some luxury goods. He will pay taxes on those goods. People will make wages producing those goods. Those wages will be taxed also. That is the way our system works best. It doesn't work well when you just take a persons hard earned money and spend it the way that government spends. Actually I should say, "the way progressive/liberals spend".
God forbid we actually tackle the spending part of the equation, or how Free Trade is shipping our wealth overseas. 913B deficit is somehow seen as progress?
Obama / 2012 "Guaranteed"
Who cares about his budget. Harry Reid will never let it go to a vote. It's been over 1000 days since the Democrats have introduced a budget and they are not going to start now.
Since when is $250,000 = $1,000,000?
Also, for those people that want to tax high earners more, what do you think the result will be? If your premise is they are greedy parasites that are taking money away from everyone else in order to get what they want, what do you think their reaction will be to a tax increase? Do you think they will all of the sudden become socially conscious and accept lower net income?
My guess is they will increase their own pay to cover the tax increase - and they will pay for the increase by firing others or cutting paychecks for us lower income earners. So, the net result will be, they continue to get the same rewards every year, but more middle class workers lose their jobs or receive pay cuts.
Because they're the only ones that make sense. Is it his fault congress can't compromise???
It seems as if the Republicans will only accept discretionary spending cuts to balance this budget, which simply makes no sense. It wasn't WIC and NPR that caused this mess, let's get real here.
Our military is so bloated we can't even audit it. Let's start with defense spending.
Than, raise the gosh darn retirement age and means test for entitlements. I have no problem not collecting SS until I'm 70, and I really don't know anybody who does have a problem with that.
Than repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, that alone will bring debt to GDP under 50%.
And puh-lease, those uber-wealthy folks who've seen their wealth grow, while upward mobility has all but stalled out... They didn't make that money by producing anything of value. They didn't invent a product that helps society, or make a product better, ergo winning in the free market. You wanna know what they did to make that money...
They dolled out debt. They created CDO's out of super high risk and super low risk obligations, than they insured themselves with our tax money under the guise of AAA ratings and bet on them. And when the whole thing blew the hell up, they took our tax money, which they insured themselves with as mentioned above, and started the whole darn thing over again.
Oh yeah, and than there are all those multinational corporations, who received tax loopholes so big they can electric slide right through them. Yup, they can dance all the way to China, where labor standards are those of the Guilded Age, and than come crying back here screaming "We have too many regulations!!!" Using those pre-historic labor standards as a reason to demonize and devalue American labor. Ahem, no, China has too few regulations. I don't see the sense in racing them back to the 19th century, when we should be forcing them into the 21st.
And because money is speech and corporations are now people, these weasels get to buy our politicians, who than allow them to do this with no capital requirements, no transparency, no fiduciary duties, and no penalties.
Than the fed prints more money to cover it all up, and voila...
SH($%* STEW FOR EVERYONE!
To Roy Wilson (Post # 1.21)
Obama would sign the Budget for 2012 provided the Republicans got off their duff and stopped voting "NO" on everything. Funny how you didn't mention that little detail.
Now isn't this the problem?
An Ind, I second that ! # 1.30
Yeah Pres. O. It is about time to change the capitalist paradigm. You make more you pay more, period. Kudos. I would love to pay more. Means I make more. Any kind of income needs to be taxed at 30% flat, no loopholes or obscure deductions. BTW, Pres. O. please come clean on the HSBC files and have them published.
The tax rate on investment income is 15% and that of salary income is taxed at 27%. This equation is intended to keep the working stiff working from hand to mouth and the privileged elite getting richer all the time. I am sure someone is going to tell me that investment income is on money that has already been taxed. Sure, the corporation paid the taxes not the investor. The original capital invested is never taxed because only that has previously been taxed and not the profit.
TO: Jacques Strapp who wrote:
What do you mean "next"? I'm already paying higher tax rates than Mitt Romney! It's about time that working Americans get the tax break and people who can afford to pay more in taxes do their fair share and their patriotic duty, just like I've been doing for YEARS now.
TO: Jacques Strapp who wrote:
Well hell, they've been "redistributing" mine for a decade or more, so how about they even the playing field and "redistribute" some rich people's money for awhile! It sure would be nice for working Americans to see a pay increase this time, instead of JUST our bosses!
Roy,
The president, this one or any past ones, do not pass budgets. Their job is to propose the annual budget which he has done, every year in office. Success or failure in passing the proposed budget is in the lap of Congress. But you know that don't you? It just sounds better in the echo chamber of delusion you and yours live in.
Sarah,
I agree with you on defense cuts, raising the SS retirement age, reworking trade agreements to be fair - not free trade, and repealing all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts (although I hope everyone realizes the middle class will take the biggest hit on this change).
The only item I disagree on is means testing SS/Medicare. I'm fine with means testing based on what a person made over their life, but not with means testing based on their retirement income. I've got a fairly large circle of friends and we all have made roughly the same amount over the years - mid 5 figures most years - although a couple others broken into the low 6 figures). However, my wife and I always find a way to save money every year, so we will have much more investment income when we're at retirement age than our friends - even though we all earned roughly the same amount over our working lives.
Why is it ok for my wife and I to not get get SS/Medicare just because we were financially responsible all of our lives? If that's the case, why should anyone ever try and be financially responsible?
I am fine with means testing based on what someone earned when they worked (even if it affects me), but I'm not ok with means testing based on a persons income at retirement age.
It is very simple:
Who the taxes come from is not the problem
More taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government = more taxes = more government..............
Sorry, I had to stop, I was getting queasy.
The reason we are 'becoming Greece' is that the chatter-box talking heads do not understand anything about how the government has operated for 200 years. The President cannot pass a budget - ever.
Only Congress passes spending authorizations - the President only signs or vetoes them. A Congressional budget resolution IS NOT A SPENDING AUTHORIZATION. The Congressional budget resolution is the same as the President's budget proposal - a guideline. Claiming that the government has not had a budget is, quite simply, idiotic.
The only way the government can spend any money is if Congress authorizes the expenditures and the President does not veto the legislation. Obviously the last 15 Congresses have authorized a lot of deficit spending and the last 5 Presidents have not vetoed the spending legislation.
The President's current budget proposal outlines a way to cut the deficit by $430 billion - in one year. If the deficit hawks in the House were REALLY serious about cutting the deficit - they would not be castigating the President for attempting to cut the deficit.
What the 'conservatives' really want to do is engage in social engineering and extending the culture of graft, favoritism, nepotism, and insider profiteering they have constructed over the last 30 years. There is always a'CON' in conservatism.
The President is proposing to reduce the deficit by $430 billion in one year. That is a good thing.
You leftists get too involved in trying to re-slice the pie so that you get a bigger piece - but more importantly - someone gets a smaller piece. Crazy thinking. How about we work towards making the pie bigger and increasing everybody's slice and even creating a few new slices? Nothing Obama has proposed since becoming President would result in a bigger economic pie, in fact, the economy has shrunk under his leadership. As Kennedy said: "A RISING TIDE RAISES ALL SHIPS."
Well, Obama is a low tide president.
@Sarah: You say you have no problem with raising the retirement age to 70. Easy if you have a non-physical type job.
Try doing blue collar jobs (like construction, waiting tables ect.) at age 70 and you may change your mind.
American Girl----- Time for working Americans to get a tax break.
Don't you dems get a little embarrassed, when you post something like that, or do you assume everyone is as ignorant as you?
According to the IRS web site the top 10% pay86% of all individual income taxes.
Same source, 47% of all tax filers last year paid no taxes.
51% of all the people in the USA over 18 pay nothing.
How much less, than nothing did you want to pay?
American Girl----- Time for working Americans to get a tax break.
Don't you dems get a little embarrassed, when you post something like that, or do you assume everyone is as ignorant as you?
According to the IRS web site the top 10% pay86% of all individual income taxes.
Same source, 47% of all tax filers last year paid no taxes.
51% of all the people in the USA over 18 pay nothing.
How much less, than nothing did you want to pay?
Obama's policy... tax the rich.... everyone needs to Pay their fair share.....Bla, bla, bla... its Congresses fault....Its Bush's fault.... It's The 1%'s fault.... Through a fancy party at the White House for my friends.... Play Golf... It's great to be me.... bla, bla bla
Yet it is a great strategy to show those who would vote for you not only your intentions but also flush out those who would kill that good intention. I would say a great strategy for getting re-elected.
American Girl - I doubt that you pay more taxes than Romney. Do you mean you pay a higher marginal rate? Learn a little more about finances before you make such ridiculous statements.
Spencer - it only looks like investment profits are taxed less than earned income, but in reality, capital gains are taxed twice - once through the investee's income tax, reducing the amount of profits distributable to owners (the fundamental driver of equity value), and again as the capital gains tax when investments are liquidated. So to be truly fair, the capital gains tax should be 0%, not 15%. But hey, 99% of people aren't going to think about is this much, and will just see that 15% < 30%, and conclude that millionaires are getting unfair tax breaks because of their power and influence. And if you can secure the votes of 99% of the people, then is it really such a bad thing if you told a few white lies here and there, at the expense of the wealthy minority?
Funny, A lot of people bashing the GOP here.. saying they'll never let the bill pass...maybe true but don't forget... 9 of the top 14 highest paid congressmen in Washington are Democrats...wonder how they'll vote?
Great article on cutting the national debt when it's also talking about Obama spending another 2.5 billion here and 2.5 billion there....I thought we had to extend the debt limit 3 times just to stop from going bankrupt...which lowered our credit rating...where are these billions coming from?
Watched Jack Lew in interviews Sunday on the news...this guy dodged so many questions he clearly didn't have answers for..great pick for the new white house spokesman.
Republicans supported a new set of rules to eliminate insider trading .... so I guess this CRASHES Democratic rhetoric of "obstructing everything" doesn't it ?
Congress is like organized religion. It protects the 1% from the 99%.
Religion was created to keep the poor from killing the rich.
Congress was created to tax the middle class and poor instead of the rich.
Ron,
Because, the more financially responsible you are in saving, the better your retirement will be. If you have the capablity to stash money away for retirement, I'm willing to bet he pay out will be higher than your SS. It's the same motivation that stirs people to invest in their retirement regardless of being assured SS.
This could be a matter of the top 5% not being elidgeable for Medicare and SS, as opposed to your middle of the road folks. Is it really necessary that people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet received that monthly SS check??? Put a 100% tax on SS if your retirement income is over a certain level, I say.
Marlen,
Everyone has to bear the brunt of this, and you are always allowed to retire when you choose, you just couldn't collect your SS until than.
If we don't all give, we're all gonna break.
There aren't, but there are people here that want to preserve the freedom and the right to become rich and keep what they earn.
We have plenty of left-wing dingbats who can't understand economics, and the fact that if the government keeps spending like a drunken sailor on wasteful programs and entitlemnents for people who milk the system, there will never be enough money to pay for it all even after confiscating all the wealthy's money. Then they'll come for the rest of us to empty the pockets of those who still work.
Remember the government's pitch on income tax when it began? "It will ONLY be a tax on "the rich", and will never go above 6%".
How'd that work out for ya?
It's all smoke and mirror's folks.
A future reduction in the spending of today's increase...HMM!
Sarah,
As long as you're talking about the Romney's and Buffet's, that's one thing - but there really aren't enough of them to make a difference. If you want to see real savings, means testing is going to have to apply to at least the upper middle class also.
@ Nerm.
Soooooo......going from 500B in deficit per year to 1500B deficits, and cutting that to 1.33T in deficits is a good thing????
Obama's plan calls for a 1.33T deficit. Even with the taxes he is proposing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/obamas-budget-will-give-gop-much-to-talk-about-this-week/2012/02/12/gIQARlJi9Q_blog.html
jim - (#1.10) I think you misread the article. obama is trying to raise the taxes on "millionaires" - he wants to raise it on the "wealthy" (over $250K per individual). Also in that he wants to re-enact the "marriage penalty tax". That is higher taxes for breaking the $400K barrier. (A couple earning $500K is taxed at a higher rate for the last $100K than two individuals earning $250K each.) In many cases it is more cost effective (tax savings) for a couple to file married-separate returns than a married-joint return. When the "marriage penalty" was in place before there were instances where couples would divorce before Dec 31 and then remarry after Jan 1. The savings in taxes more than paid for their vacations to various locations that would perform the "quick" actions.
Ron,
Perhaps, but let's start with taxing the wealth and see where that gets us. It's really that top 5% that holds just about all of the wealth, if we're gonna mine for gold, are we gonna start by digging in our sandboxes???
@Sarah-3043284 -- The problem is that a worker's 'investments' are deferred income and will be taxed later as earned income. That is the problem.
The tax code favors unearned income - capital gains. That is how people like Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney enjoy a lower tax rate. The tax code encourages people to NOT work by providing incentives for unearned income.
We need to reverse the trend so that earned income (wages and salaries) is taxed less and unearned income (capital gains) is taxed more. We need to change the incentives in the tax code to encourage people at all income brackets to work. We need more workers in the economy and far fewer 'idle rich'.
Nerm,
I agree with that. Not taxing capital gains rewards wealth, not hard work. We also need to focus on more than just a blanket raising of taxes, and look at loopholes, penalties and incentives for creating American manufacturing and investment. Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts is a starting point only, the whole system needs a make over.
It isn't about higher or lower taxes, it's about smarter taxes.
zoro, not 19%, 47% of americans pay no federal income tax. And some of them get back federal income tax refund. I agree, let's pay our fair share. But that means all americans.
Did anyone notice Mr. Lew said "It is not the time for Austerity measures."
Wow, Mr. Obama's "elite" White House Staff "adviser" saying AUSTERITY when discussing HiS BUDGET proposal, which is pointing the finger at America becoming another GREECE. Yep, things are really going great in Greece.
Mr. Lew is almost as useful as the rest of the flock who flew the Obama coop and got out of Dodge.
Wait a minute.....Mr. Obama's chances are getting better for re-election "based upon the DOW's recent rebound" (notice: no comments allowed on that article). Sheeeesh, I suppose his chances of getting re-elected are NOT GOING TO BE TOO GOOD when the DOW tanks after Greece defaults. Nice going MSNBC, good litmus test.
brian-1077790.....So true. And Mr. Obama has "dodged" issues which will affect his re-election bid, or is the "moderators" just asking White House provided questions with none on the "real" issues, or is this Administration taking the FIFTH when they are asked hard questions. Seems this tactic is being used quite often with Mr. Obama's "elite" administration.
@cdahl - The President's proposal has a $901 billion deficit for FY2013 - $430 billion less than the $1.33 trillion deficit for FY2012. Those are the numbers given in the article we are commenting on.
Proposing less deficit spending IS a good thing. Even your numbers show a reduction in the deficit. Trying to claim that doing a good thing - is just not good enough - only encourages the problem to be ignored.
I thought the whole idea behind the TEA Party was to encourage lowering the deficit - until the budget is balanced. Or is the TEA Party thing just a cover for some other political agenda?
If you guys don't remember BO's budget was voted on last year in the senate. It lost 93-0 i believe. Yes home gamers, his budget was soooo bad in spending last year it didn't even get ONE democratic vote.
Now, i just heard the numbet leaked out of 3.8Trillion he wants to spend this fiscal year. Which is yet another RECORD SPENDING bill. We may get 2.5 Trillion this year which gives another1.3 TRILLION deficit.
He promised to cut Bush's deficit in half by 4 years, which would put him around 200 to 250 Billion deficit ........ but we get 5 to 6 times that at 1.3 Trillion.
But i'm sure somehow this will be blamed on others.
Sarah: I am assuming you have never owned a business so let me explain to you how it works. It is really quite simple.
Say a person who currently makes $500,000/year has $1million available to invest and has three choices.
1) They can simply buy Treasury Bonds and make about 2%.
2) They can invest $1million in a new business idea/venture.
3) They can buy an island in the Bahamas and sip Pina Colada's all day.
An investor looks at their BEST opportunity given the risk so here are his options:
Option #1 is very low risk but very low return. He would prefer to make more and willing to risk a little too so Option #1 is not considered.
Option#2 is risky and may lose all $1million or may be very successful and make $200,000 per year return on investment. Most likely somewhere in-between and expects to make about $120,000 (or 12% ROI - this will be important in a minute). This in intriguing and will also create 50 jobs. Will be an aggravation but the "reward" is intriguing.
Option #3 buying an island is only expected to increase 6% a year so is not a great investment. However, this is a capital gains purchase meaning he can buy the island for $1million and not have to pay ANY taxes on this purchase until he sells it.
So he is strongly considering Option #2 since he can make more even though there is more aggravation and more risk he still is considering. And THEN Obama comes along and tells him that, if he opens this business, he MUST offer health care to these 50 workers (ObamaCare), he MUST pay additional fees to the government for financial regulations (Dodd Frank), he MUST pay environmental impact fees for the land he is planning to clear to build his building for this business (EPA), and so on. And, oh by the way, if you are successful you MUST pay 30% of your profits in taxes. This businessman calculates ALL these costs and determines his ACTUAL profit will now be $80,000 a year instead of $120,000 a year. That is now 8% ROI on his $1million investment rather than the expected 12%.
So this investor asks themselves why risk $1million and potentially lose it all or, if things go as planned, he can only make $80,000 (in other words 8% ROI). End result is he decides to buy the island. He sips Pina Colada's all day. Pays no taxes (until he sells the island 10 years later). The 50 jobs planned don't occur. That is less SS tax revenue, less Medicare tax revenue, less tax revenue. Did you HURT the investor? No!! The investor simply reallocates his resources (capital in this case) elsewhere. Who got hurt? YOU AND I GOT HURT!!
So you need to get a better grasp on how an economy actually works. The ONLY way to grow an economy is to incentivize the private sector to invest and expand more. You do NOT incentivize businesses to invest and expand more by threatening higher taxes, higher costs, and more regulations. Our country's focus is in the wrong direction. You don't PENALIZE business - you put your arm over their shoulder and tell them we appreciate them and want to help them succeed.
When a business succeeds then employees succeed. When businesses succeed tax revenue goes up and the country succeeds. When businesses succeed the economy succeeds. When businesses DON'T succeed you have an economy like we do now.
Are the right wing nuts trying to write some comedies on this blog? They are simply unreal, or just totally brain damaged! Keep the tax low for the rich so they can buy yachts to create jobs? Is that right wing nut for REAL? Gosh! The bible keep saying God created man, but it didn't say He created IDIOTS like this!
Another good one from a nut called Jim. Someone earning $250,000 a year should not have their tax raised because they want to send their kids to Harvard. I simply wonder what Luxury this people have to live in while they want to send their kids to college. $250,000 a year is not enough to send their kids to Harvard? If they want to send their kids to a privilaged school, just cut down on their friggin' luxuries and save $$. Besides, there are something call student loans. Why are the kids of the rich so much more privileged than the regular families and the poor families that they don't have to work for their own education? What kind of SH*T are in the heads of these right wing NUTS?
@ Nerm.
Using that logic.....Then Obama should have spend 10T, and proposed a reduction in spending to have a deficit of only 1.33T. A whopping 87% decrease in federal spending.
No. I'm not satisfied until the Federal government starts to balance their budget. The era of letting the rise of GDP cover our deficit spending is over.
I really don't care where they start to cut, but until we get to a balanced budget, I won't give Obama credit for only spending 1.33T more than he took in.
ProBusiness,
If you think we've had anything close to Capitalism for the last 30 years, you have zero concept of what's been occurring in our market.
How about this option:
Punish those who make their billions off of dolling out debt instead of creating something of value.
Punish those who take advantage of labor markets outside of the U.S.
Reinstate capital requirements, transparency and fiduciary duties on the part of lenders.
Everyone Else,
Why are we all solely focused on discretionary spending!!! This is driving me nuts! This can not be all about cuts! First, it's impossible to balance the budget on just cuts, and second it will collapse our economy.
Geez oh Petes!!!
It isn't about less spending or more spending, it's about smart spending. Just like it's about smart taxes. And smart trade. And smart defense. Nothing about our economy or government is so simple as to be solved by "spending cuts".
Neither spending nor taxes are the devil, and neither will collapse our society. You wanna know what will, DOING neither, or doing BOTH STUPIDLY.
That's what we should be focused on.
BRAVO...dsdsherm...spot on.
Doomed to failure...BTW, did you know 1 in 5 Americans (67,000,000 <sixty-seven million >)are on the dole?
You ask how much that costs?
2.5 TRILLION per year. 70% (seventy percent) of the federal budget!
Food stamp usage alone has DOUBLED since 2008!!!
YUP...let's keep spending!
Here's why I will not vote for another republican President. From 30% GDP, Reagan and Bush1 GDP rose into the low 60%. Clinton brought it down to the low 50%. Then Bush 2 brought it up to 85% with tax breaks, wars on a credit card and a blind eye on the economy. This is history, no way around the facts, you can argue, spin whatever. Now we elect President Obama. First words from Republicans is to make him a one term president. They are doing a real good job. A lot of you here believe all the spins. Without any congressional help, the party of no is keeping the economy in the tank. And alot of you are believers. The Republicans caused it and blaming the Dem's.
Apparently my first post had a little bit too much truth in it, huh...
ProBusiness,
You didn't address the main problem in our economy...
They didn't make that money by producing anything of value. They didn't invent a product that helps society, or make a product better, ergo winning in the free market. You wanna know what they did to make that money...
They dolled out debt. They created CDO's out of super high risk and super low risk obligations, than they insured themselves with our tax money under the guise of AAA ratings and bet on them. And when the whole thing blew the hell up, they took our tax money, which they insured themselves with as mentioned above, and started the whole darn thing over again.
Do you deny that this is what's been happening? Do you deny that we have no capital requirements or transparency? Do you deny that transparency and capital requirements are necessary in order to ensure a free market? Do you deny that those banks make a profit off of dolling out debt, and ergo should be held accountable by those accepting that debt, as to what they do with it? Do you deny that it isn't a good idea for banks to have more than a single purpose? Do you deny that too big too fail is too big to exist?
Stop spewing rhetoric, and let's actually look at the problem.
People that get capital gains haven't worked hard for their money? Really? I get a few capital gains and i busted my butt working a full time job and a couple of businesses over the years. I am RISKING MY MONEY when i go for capital gains as nothing with a good return is risk free.
I had a good buy on a rental and i sold it before the taxes were to go up to 25% a few years ago. They eventually didn't go up but i took the 15% hit to keep from getting the 25% hit. You raise my RISK to 30% of cap gains and i no longer invest outside of my retirement program. All my extra money goes to real estate principle on my home and rentals until it is lowered again.
You guys that think people's behavior won't change if you raise cap gains to 30% have your head in the sand. Look at the last time cap gains were raised in 1987. They went from 20 to 28%. Did we get more revenue? NOOOOOOO! Revenue collected for the next 10 years was LOWER than what was collected in 1986. They didn't excede 1986 levels until 1997, when Clinton signed a tax CUT back to 20% and revenues took off.
Go to the BLS site and look it up. And the last 3 cuts since 1981 that INCREASED revenue.
@ProBusiness -- What drivel. Keep your day job - you won't make as a fiction writer.
If you plan to 'invest' in a a business start up - you are planning to NOT offer health insurance from the beginning? Sounds like a crummy place to work. Businesses offer health insurance to compete for workers - that is part of the compensation package. The government is requiring you to do something you need to do anyway?
As a capital investor in a business start up - I'm looking at a minimum of 40% return - and - I will want 51% interest in the business. When the business begins to show a 'profit' - I will use my controlling interest to force the business to borrow enough to pay back my initial investment. When the business develops a steady customer base - I will use my controlling interest to sell the business and take my share of the proceeds first.
And I will pay taxes on my 'income' at a lower rate than you will as a salaried business manager.
JH - that's tough about the luxury yacht business, but it's irrelevant. Issue is whether that portion of the tax bill comes out of pockets of millionaires or from the pockets of Average Joes and Janes. Issue is not how that money would've been spent if untaxed.
And for what it's worth, aside from luxury yachts and luxury items in general being such a minute and trifling portion of the overall economy, millionaires engaged in conspicuous spending on luxury items are far more likely to buy foreign goods (which are deemed more "chique" by their froo-froo standards), than American ones. Average income folk are the ones who spend the higher percentage patronizing local/ American businesses and buying American goods.
Sarah: Are you serious?!?! What is the purpose of investing? To make a profit!! So an investor looks at the best opportunity to use his money and makes a decision. Are you telling me now a person is not ENTITLED to his money? Are you going so far to tell me that an investor should not be ALLOWED to keep his money?
That is the ONLY thing you can be saying if you want to now direct how a person can USE their money!! I will start a business and hire employees if it is in MY best interest. Not YOUR best interest. You really need to get a grasp of economic reality.
If you don't want an investor to invest in America that is easy - just keep increasing his costs of doing business. Just keep doing what Obama is doing and the answer will be easy. Invest in an island. Invest overseas. But don't invest in the U.S. That is EXACTLY what Obama is creating.
You can come up with all your "but our society would be better if....." ideas but if that is your belief then one might consider going to a country where that philosophy is currently being used. A nice trip to Greece where - Oh sorry they are in the midst of an economic collapse. Then maybe Spain because in Spain - Oh wait a minute they are collapsing too. Okay but certainly Portugal - Oh wait they are collapsing too. Funny thing is there are so many European countries who have had Obama philosophies in the last few decades and they are falling like dominoes throughout the world but somehow JUST SOMEHOW Obama knows the "right way" to do it? Sorry, it will fail just like it has failed everywhere else.
It is called "economics" and anybody who has taken a college economics class (and PASSED!!) knows that ONLY the private markets can grow an economy. So how is the private markets to fix this economy when Obama is doing everything he can to stymy their growth?
Sarah, if you are referring to the real estate pop, there were a couple of dozen companies that were running the CDO's, MBS's and mortgage bonds. They were packaging existing products for sale. The product blew up because the underlying motrgages were garbage, which was the problem. I built houses and saw this as early as 2004 basically giving houses away. This caused the problem and a lot of the CEO's didn't even know what their derivative traders were doing. Fannie/Freddie regulation legislation failed that would have strongly curtailed this. Shot down by the DEm senate.
This is not the current day problem. Banks do have capital requirements. Having banks only do a single purpose is silly. One does checking. One does residential lending. One does commercial. One does Investment. Not feasible.
Man, Obama has done a heck of a job on class warfare. He has all middle class screaming for increases on the rich, yet no one in the middle class worried about paying to much??? I for one think the middle class pays to much, and the so called rich pay plenty. The problem is a government that is spending and wasting way way to much. It is sickening when You look at where the money goes. I own a business, and I had to tighten My belt when things slowed down. The government on the other hand just cranked up the printing press. Come on people We have to stop the out of control spending, I can't believe that every single post doesn't say this !!!
@cdahl --
The President's proposal has done just that. Do not complain about someone else's logic - when they are pointing out that YOUR desired objective is being met.
Even using your numbers - the President is proposing to work toward YOUR desired objective of lowering the deficits and moving in the direction of a balanced budget.
The President is doing exactly what you want done. Unless your desire for 'starting to balance the budget' is simply cover for some other political agenda ...
Nerm: First, I was making a point. My point is NOT that insurance is/isn't offered it is the fact that government DICTATING what insurance is/isn't offered raises the cost of business. Second, you have clearly never invested before - have you? There is not a rational business investor that expects anywhere NEAR 40% return.
So you are aware I am a Financial Analyst by day and, for enjoyment, teach Economics at night (I have two masters degrees: MBA and Applied Economics). In-between I offer financial consultation and assist new potential business owners in putting together a business plan and presentations to pursue capital investing and/or for discussion with their neighborhood banks. So I suggest you not try to pick numbers out of the air trying to pass them off as "factual" because they are nowhere close to factual. Your wording alone implied you despise capital investors and entrepreneurs. That is the most dangerous aspect of today's society - and that is "hating" the businessman.
A capital investor is looking for something in the 15% to 25% return on high risk capital but if I am looking to open a nice little restaurant in a strip center I will be lucky to earn 12% when it is all said and done. So work on your facts a little more and look at it from the business point of view. Say I have saved up $100,000 and looking to open a small restaurant. What would HELP me feel comfortable in opening this business and creating jobs and what would cause me to be concerned and NOT open this business. Obama is forcing the later.
Nerm, the president proposed a RECORD SPENDING of 3.8 TRILLION. Just how is that balancing the budget. He PROMISED you and me to cut Bush's last deficit in half by his last term which would be around 200 to 250 Billion but will be around 1.3 Trillion, 5 to 6 times as much. How is that balancing?
ProBusiness,
Where did you even get that from??? And, PS, I haven't mentioned Obama in regards to this at all. No politician has done anything to stop it, because they're bought by the people profiting off of it.
Now try to keep up, I'll break it down as best I can. Your points are completely moot, because the people making boo-coop bucks aren't producing anything of value, nor are they investing in anyone who does.
We have a system that makes it's money dolling out debt. Than they chop that debt up, bundle it into CDO's, place (at their discretion) an insurance rating on it, and bet on it. Than, if the whole thing blows up, our tax dollars bail them out.
Is that what's going on, yes or no?
Have banks made more money off of that, than investing in American inovation and manufacturing, yes or no?
Has that created anything of value, any product, any improvement to a system, any jobs, yes or no?
Do banks have any capital requirements, yes or no?
Can they therefore be leveraged at any rate they want, yes or no?
Do they have any transparency requirements, yes or no?
Can we operate a free market if we don't know what our options are, yes or no?
Can we operate a free market, if certain institutions are too big to fail, yes or no?
If a bank is going to get John Q. Citizen into debt in order to profit off of that debt, and than get bailed out by John Q. Citizen, thereby making John Q. Citizen detrimentally rely on the bank to not do anything to stupid, shouldn't the bank not be allowed to do anything too stupid, yes or no?
Apparently economics classes have been forgotten by all. The GDP has increased 62%. From 30% 1980 to 92% now. How has trickle down worked. Not very good and the party of no keeps with the program of blaming Obama, when in fact it was started by Reagan and continued by Republican policies. So now deficits matter. Right. Did the Republicans magically change directions? They have the same agenda. The middle class is dying and they like it.
Nerm,
Obama's budget leaves a deficit of 1.33T. Bush's wayward irresponsible spending left annual deficits of 500B. I was disgusted with Bush, and am appalled at Obama's run away deficit spending. If Obama puts forth a budget that balances, even with significant tax increases I'll support it.
But with the significant tax increases in Obama's budget, he is still proposing a 1.33T deficit in 2013. Not something that I will blindly applaud. And quite frankly I'm surprise you do.
Sarah the marketplace you are referring to is the selling of loans that has been going on for 100 years. Someone makes a loan, then someone else buys that loan to make a return on that money. It is done with all types of things, even mobile homes and it is a HUGE industry and i have both sold and bought a few loans.
A bundling of these loans historically could withstand around an 8% default rate. When the mortgage mess blew up there were default rates in the area of 50% in some. Some of these mortgage bonds had 1000+ loans in them and were a huge mess to fix from a bundled stand point. They had no idea how to value them or unravel them.
The main cause was qualifying people that had no business buying a house. I saw it as i sold a few houses to people that were less than a year off bankruptcy and other really bad financial situations. My jaw would drop when my mortgage broker we call me saying they found them financing.
Although we are still recovering from it that is not our current problem. My banker friend tells me Dodd Frank is forcing them to downgrade salvagible loans thus increasing capital reserve requirements. Over 5000 pages in the federal register now from Dodd Frank which forced them into hiring a full time compliance officer. A few of the things that hurt small banks.
@joel-989818 -- Exactly who is engaging in class warfare?
President Obama has been calling for people in his own economic class to pay more taxes. Warren Buffet has been proposing that people in his own economic class to pay more taxes.
The President has not tried to create a war between economic classes - the 'loyal opposition' has engaged in the political rhetoric of class warfare. The 'loyal opposition' have enlisted YOU to speak on behalf of the 1%.
JH-479998 Comment collapsed by the community
I guess you forgot that the president's job is to lead, not to cow-tow to the Republican fiscal idiots. His budget has plenty in there that does NOT subscribe to pure left policies... it's just that the right has become so FAR right, they can't see them.
BigATC,
Fannie/Freddie were only responsible for 16% of the proliferation of high risk mortgages. Not okay, but not the big contributer.And no, they haven't curtailed it or placed capital requirements on it at all. That would happen if they reinstated Glass-Stegall, which they haven't done. Can you please provide a source for your information that they have??? I'd like to check it out. If they have, than I say WHOOPEE! Furthermore, Dodd-Frank is a joke, which has been stripped of all power/purpose by the politicians who are bought by those who have a vested interested in keeping our current system going.
Let's break our system down first...
Than, we mix into this the political/legal side of things...
All of this added together means, no capital requirements, no transparency, no stoppage of manipulation/fraud. Our market has now gone from having aligned interests with the public, where banks invest in the most innovative and productive manufacturers, who are forced by the free market to higher standards, to the banks having their interests lay in dolling out as much debt to citizens as possible, regardless of the liklihood of that debt being paid back. Afterall, they're protected with tax payer money, and the Fed can always print more to cover up what's actually taking place.
This is not capitalism, and taxing it doesn't punish "job creation" or hardwork. Let's get real, people.
TO: MRZ-1191248 who wrote:
What? It's a problem for those of us who are paying taxes! My tax rates are higher than Mitt Romney's and I have to work for a living. While CEOs and other high ranking officers of corporations have been getting their pay raises, tax cuts and bonuses on a regular basis, American Workers wages have been stagnant! Now we're supposed to do without affordable health care too because folks who have been getting money have gotten too greedy now!
As for all that "more government" stuff, Republicans should have thought about the price of war while they were lying the American People into war in Iraq. Now that the money has been spent it has to be paid back, and they only way you can pay back loans is with MONEY. You can't pay bills with tax cuts, budget cuts, and pay cuts alone!
Obama / Biden 2012
Budget!!! We don't need no stinking budget! Why, what has it been, over 1170 days sine Harry Reid and the Spending Party controlled folks in the Senate have passed a budget.
But that's okay, just blame the GOP for not compromising with Senate Dems.
Probusiness,
My God... this is by FAR the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life.
You actually want people to believe that investing and running a business are the same thing? You do realize that you can invest, and NOT pay any of the things you stated, right?
Seriously, in your warped, retarded world, the only options are Treasury Bonds, Invest and start/run a business, or buy an island? That's it... you think those are your ONLY options? Jesus Christ, you are by far the worst business man EVER.
Here's the truth for everyone else. There are thousands of ways to invest a "million" dollars and gain much more than 12%. Hell, you can invest in a business and NOT run the business, just invest, sit back and watch the money roll in. On top of that, investing does not and never will guarantee any jobs are created. In fact, your investment can rise if jobs are killed. So mr. Probusiness and his retarded analogy is just a bulls*** talking point with no actual truth.
Do you have any idea how many companies I have invested in, made OVER 30% ROI, and paid ZERO fees because I am just the investor? On top of that, I pay less taxes even though I did less work. I simply moved money into the investment, did nothing, sat back, and watched my investment rise.
You know what the difference between us is? I am HONEST, where you lie and try to make it sound like your "investments" are more than what they are.
@ProBusiness -- Mitt Romney's Bain Capital received as much as 80% returns - almost doubled their money - and 40% was common.
Starting a business is working for your income. The tax incentive should be for you to start a business AND receive earned income from that business. You should not need to play financial games to lower your tax exposure. Those financial games are non-productive activities.
The function of a business is to create new wealth in the economy - not profits. There is no economic law that requires a business to create profits. As you know, non-profit businesses are not charities and some do quite well - Goodwill Industries is an example.
The business owner obviously should receive a larger share of that created wealth - but - should not be required to engage in non-productive financial games to keep it. The only reason the financial games are necessary is because the tax code favors non-productive investing - favors unearned income over earned income.
The government's role is to moderate the economy using regulations and taxes. Regulation and taxes are to provide deterrence for non-productive economic activity (that creates money from money) and provide incentives for productive economic activity (creating wealth). The economy needs to create new wealth to sustain itself.
It's simply impossible to reason with the right wing nuts nowadays. They're only focus on one thing - power for their own party. I can see the motive for the right wing politicians and the rich 1% to gain all the power they possibly can to destroy the middle class for their own benefits. I just couldn't see why the middle class and poor far rights are so determined to destroy themselves by being so ignorant and supporting the vultures who're out to destroy the middle class which include themselves. Totally unbelievable! and it's not a good idea for the rich to destroy the middle class and/or the poor in this country either. Their businesses rely on the majority of the country to survive. If they destroy the middle class and even the poor, they will have no customers! Do they think they can remain rich by attracting foreign customers? Are they so naive to believe that other countries will welcome American products made in their own homelands? People from other countries are not naive and stupid like the right wing nuts! They don't watch fox news or listen to rush limbaugh!
Without the middle class and their brain power, It won't be long from now that the few industries left in this country will be overtaken by developing countries. The rich and the republicans are creating all the opportunities for China and India and Korea, etc. to overtake the technologies and business of this country. Ultimately people from these countries will replace even the rich 1% of this country. If we let the right wing nuts have their way, it won't take long for this to happen!
The president DOES NOT "pass and sign" a budget. ONLY the two bodies of CONGRESS (HOUSE and Senate.....not Congress and Senate) pass a BUDGET RESOLUTION (non-binding spending guide) AFTER the president submits his budget PROPOSAL. The president only signs or vetoes spending authorization bills AFTER BOTH bodies of Congress have passed budget resolutions and the necessary spending authorizations. Read your constitution and budget procedures.
Kudos to Sarah. I see the GOP spam machine is operating at full steam and you are very effective at pointing out the folly and misdirection that is part of their scortched earth plan to regain the Whitehouse. It is apparent that many of the posters here are parroting the Fox news and commentary points without any knowledge of economics or political science. In other worrds Sarah you are having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. It is like teaching a pig to sing, it can't be done and it only seems to aggravate the pig. Keep up the good fight. You may not convince any of the fervent tea pubs or right wingnuts, but you do reaffirm there is someone who is not swayed by their uninformed posturing and bluster.
Spend, spend, spend your way out of debt. Yup, I can see the logic in that. Now, where does the spending money come from??? Oh, yeah, tax the rich. Uh huh. Sooo, let us take all the money from anyone making over $250,000. (That's the benchmark for rich BTW) and spend it. That's the ticket. Wow, I am so surprised he didn't think of this before...oh, wait...
ProBusiness:
OMG??? What is this country coming to?
My parents did all those things so I wouldn't have to! Hell, they even sent me to college and I got a Liberal Arts degree! There aren't many, but I've applied for every CEO position! You know, I haven't gotten a single request to come in for a job interview! Some old guy told me I should apply for an ENTRY LEVEL(?) position that only pays $36K a year! Can you imagine that after I spent all that time in school getting this degree? <please note the sarcasm>
Yes, we have really lost our way! We've left the "PURSUIT" out of our recollection of the Bill of Rights! WE WANT OUR HAPPINESS NOW! To hell with having to hunt for it! I mean, hell, if some guy wants to work 80-100 hours a week just to try and get ahead, why should I have to? This is the USA! I'm entitled to my happiness NOW!
We've forgotten that this COUNTRY was built on the backs of BLUE COLLAR workers who strived to better themselves and their families! It is, now, demeaning to hold down a job that doesn't require a college degree. I doubt any of the workers on Henry Ford's production line were college graduates.
The points you made but didn't really define are all valid. The "investor" isn't going to put his money in a business just to hire people. He has to invest in something that has a "BUYER" for the fruits of the labor of the people his new venture he invests in.
Unfortunately, we've decided it is better to help other countries grow their economies than to worry about our own! We have given away the jobs of (about) 20% of our workforce to new PRODUCER NATIONS while we, to our peril, have slowly evolved to a CONSUMER NATION! The TIDE is still going out and ALL BOATS are going down!
The pundits champion the new GLOBAL ECONOMY, like we only "suddenly" started doing business with other countries. We've had international trade since before we were a USA! The only thing that changed is it is, by government decree, desirable to send OUR jobs to lesser developed nations!
Before we opened the flood gates almost every company who has opted to send jobs away were doing OK with the jobs being here. The government took away the rules that kept the playing field level for our producers, in favor of killing our economy!
This "pole shift" was masked by the Dot Com and Housing Bubbles and it wasn't until those popped that we suddenly realized we'd given away 20% of the jobs of our workforce, mostly Blue Collar MANUFACTURING (and related) jobs!
Yes, we have a spending problem and we've had it for a long, long time but it didn't hit HOME until we didn't have enough TAXPAYERS to carry the load!
Thank you, Navy Patriot. It is incredibly aggravating, to know where the real problem lays, and yet to hear people break it down to something as simple as "more spending cuts are needed."
What's needed is some transparency, and to no longer allow our politicians to be bought by the people who have a vested interest in keeping our current system in place, be they Democrats or Republicans.
Somebody needs to have the cojones to stand up to big money interests, even if it means losing their seat in congress or the oval office. They're taking us all for a ride, people. Either we stop them, or we all die in the firey crash.
It amazing how these people can get on here and make claim that capital gains are taxed twice. Evidently they don't do their taxes and don't know the tax laws or they are out right liars.
A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.
What that means people is that the money you use to make money is not taxed again. In other words, Mitt Romney only paid taxes on his profit...not all his money. Now he paid less than 15% on his capital gains which means he had expenses involved to make the money such as fee and wages to accountants. My income is taxed as earned income which means that if I have $100,000 dollars in taxable income after deductions I have to pay 25% on everything over $69,000. Not really a fair system when some people are taxed at different rates when they make the same money. I'm not saying I make the same money as Romney but I am saying that someone that has $100,000 taxable income from long term capital gains which is taxed at 15% max while someone's taxable income between $100,000 - $69,000 earned by working on an oil rig is taxed at of 25% isn't fair taxation any way you slice it.
On top of that, these wealthy people are not putting the money back into the economy like a working man would but rather speculating on things like oil, gold, or commodities which runs up the price for us working wage earners.
Sarah i agree on the glass stegall, transparncy,etc.
Fannie/Freedie didn't have all of them, but were the "baseline +" that originators used to create these loans. Regulation there would have been a big help. Banks have the capital requirement.
If you are referring to originators having capital requirements that would more likely come in the form of having them (fannie, Freddie and others) come in the form of actually having to keep a certain portion of their loans originated. i.e. I sell you a $100,000 loan and i have to keep $10,000 of that loan. That would have been, and may be, a big help. I guarentee you a lot of that subprime crap would not have been written if that was in place. A LOT of companies sold ALL their loans originated and didn't give a damn what was in them.
But today's loan requirements are't allowing all the sub prime crap that was going on to happen. Even with all the low rates people are having trouble qualifying. All those stated loans, No doc loans, etc that were flying off the shelf are not happening.
BigATC,
Leverage is exactly what I mean by capital requirements. IMF, for example, was leveraged somewhere around the rate of 40:1. Now that just makes no sense.
I agree that mortgages per se, are no longer the issue, the issue is, that system we had in place, is still in place. They will simply find a different tool. The subprime crisis was a symptom of the disease, the disease being the repeal of Glass-Stegal and money in politics.
Ring-wingers, what can Teapublicans do to stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring for everyone? Nothing! The only thing they can do is stop the tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000/year, in other words YOU! Why are YOU against lower tax rates for YOU? If the only way to get the rich to pay taxes is for my rate to go up too, I say let all the Bush tax cuts expire -- but obviously the middle class needs help to get out of this recession, so preferably not. Idiots.
As for the highest bracket, we're only talking around 4% difference between the Bush rate and Clinton rate. This small increase did not hurt the rich then and won't hurt them now. They have to come up with "class warfare" to get stupid people like you to fight for them to keep their measly %.
And of course loopholes, as well as corporate welfare subsidies... President Obama has proposed lower corporate rates -- IF loopholes are removed. Because the rate could drop from 35% to 25% and we would collect more as long as loopholes are removed. My concern is the rate would be reduced, and loopholes would reappear per GOP/TP machinations.
Right now the rich (on average) pay an effective tax rate of only 15%, and corporations on average pay 9%. Even YOU who are self-employed and cheating on your taxes, and YOU with your $1,000 per child tax credit are a big reason why we have a deficit. We just need everyone to be patriotic citizens and pay their damn taxes like they used to.
Yep, as long as we have "the best political system money can buy" it doesn't much matter who is in office as whatever comes out will be watered down at best. There will probably always be those guys finding that "different tool" to counter legislation in search of the almighty dollar.
IMF was a disaster and shouldn't have been allowed that type leverage. And it seems illegal from what little i have followed of it. Risk manager actually had heated arguments with Corzine on what he was doing. Not sure Corzine was illegal in what he did but it was was as close as you can get and definitely immoral and irresponsible with customer money.
Unless someone much smarter than me figures out how to get money out of politics and we have term limits we will continue to slide as a country.
Big ATC,
It starts with checking the SCOTUS decision of Buckley v Valeo. That's the decision that ruled money equals speech. It can be done through a simple Constitutional Amendment. Where the complications arise is getting our politicians to agree on it. It will have to be a simultaneous decision, driven by the voice of the electorate.
Start here, if you're interested...
http://getmoneyout.com/
Mark:
Yes, but historically, 27-29% of wage earners were deemed unable to pay taxes due to their low income. The 19% I am referring to are the people who were historically able to pay taxes, but then, one day weren't.
constitutional ammendmants are not simple. I'm somewhat mixed on the money is free speech leaning more towards the free speech side.
I think if they put a limit on contributions to maybe 2 grand per person or company would help. Meaning your max contribution and GE's max contribution is the same. No super pacs, no $40,000 per plate dinners, etc. Have to be a citizen or American registered company to contribute. That way Soros and the Koch's would be limited to 2k and their companies also limited to 2k. The problem would be monitering people setting up bogus companies, but even if they did it would be marginal.
BigATC,
It's a myth that the Constitution is that hard to amend. It's only hard, if our politicians can't get along. We've done it 27 times. We can do it 28.
Money can't equal speech, otherwise we will have an oligarchy. Speech is a protected civil right we are given simply because we're born human, money is property we earn, inherit, steal... If we make money speech, in essence we give whoever has the most money, the most civil rights.
I completely agree with you on capping donations. That's why this can't be focused solely on Citizen's United and corporate wealth. I don't want anyone buying my government, not GE, not labor unions or the NRA, and not these crazy comic book rich people like Soros or Foster Friess (I mean could that be anymore "Stan Lee" sounding??)
I've also heard the idea of a 100% camapaign tax once your campaign reaches a certain amount brought in. Let's say Obama raises $10 million, every dollar after that gets taxed at a rate of 100% and put into a public fund that other candidates could draw from.
That way, regardless of any "front" companies that contribute, the amount is still limited.
Amazing how many people don't know how business and investment work!!
Indie: Okay, I give three examples. Are there more? WELL DUH!! My point was of the THOUSANDS of investment opportunities you look at the top few. I point out three scenarios and show you how disincentivizing business affects their investment decisions thus affects their hiring and expansion decisions thus affects the economy. Do you hurt the wealthy? NO!! It will ALWAYS be those that would have WORKED for the wealthy that are affected. This is simple economics. And your comment is (wait for it - this is good:)!!) "but there are more than 3 options!!". No further comment needed.
Nerm: I tell you what the normal business investor is looking for and that is that 12% to 16%. Again, it is called "economics". Do some accept significantly higher risks in pursuit of higher rewards? Absolutely!! But for every one investor that gets an 80% return there are 10 others that "speculated" on similar investments and lost their investment. These are called "speculators". Speculators do not generally hold investments long enough to pay Long Term Capital Gains so that is NOT what this discussion is about. I am talking about the business investor looking to start a restaurant, corner gift store, or internet store. These people are going after 10% to 15% ROI. I suggest you take a Finance course and an Economics course at your local college.
And Sarah: All I can say is bless your little heart. You have been all over the map in your comments and your opinions but to tell me that my points about business are moot points? Because they don't "produce" anything? If they sell a service they are STILL producing something. Regardless, in order for a business to make money they must provide goods and/or services so if a business is being paid THEY ARE PRODUCING SOMETHING!! So let's focus and stay on track. The question is how are Obama policies affecting business.
The problem is many in this thread believe that the "rich" make too much and they deserve some of it. Others believe hurting those that produce to extract money and give to those that don't produce damage this economy so rather than finger pointing and calling names I would like to ask just one simple question.
If a business right now has decided NOT to expand or hire can you explain to me how asking this business to increase their cost of doing business (i.e. ObamaCare/higher taxes/etc.) will actually incentivize them to now decide to expand or hire?
Assume you are talking to a business owner and they tell you they just don't feel comfortable expanding or hiring right now but you tell them "but don't forget - your taxes are going UP next year and when ObamaCare is fully implemented that will cost you more too!!". So now the business owner says "you know, I wasn't going to expand or hire right now but now that you reminded me I will be paying MORE in taxes and MORE in health care costs maybe it DOES make sense to expand and hire!!". And in what BIZZARO WORLD does a person live in to think THAT makes sense!!
Pro,
First, not to be rude, but you can shove your patronizing tone where the sun doesn't shine, my little heart doesn't need you to bless it. Second, you answered not a single one of my questions. Third, what service are they selling exactly??? They're selling debt. That's it. Debt. Debt has no value in the free market. It doesn't create competition. It doesn't produce something the populace needs. They are being paid through the debt they create. By betting on that debt. By selling that debt. By swapping that debt. Here, try again...
Have banks made more money off of that, than investing in American inovation and manufacturing, yes or no?
Has that created anything of value, any product, any improvement to a system, any jobs, yes or no?
Do banks have any capital requirements, yes or no?
Can they therefore be leveraged at any rate they want, yes or no?
Do they have any transparency requirements, yes or no?
Can we operate a free market if we don't know what our options are, yes or no?
Can we operate a free market, if certain institutions are too big to fail, yes or no?
If a bank is going to get John Q. Citizen into debt in order to profit off of that debt, and than get bailed out by John Q. Citizen, thereby making John Q. Citizen detrimentally rely on the bank to not do anything to stupid, shouldn't the bank not be allowed to do anything too stupid, yes or no?
Furthermore, I haven't mentioned Obama's policies, because he doesn't have any pertaining to this. No politician does, and that's where our anger should be placed right now. That's the legitimate source of outrage.
Pro...
Thanks for the sanity !
And you are correct about the change that's taken place in how 'successful' folks used to be looked at, as compared to now. Mr. Romney...enormously successful in business and he just about had to apologize to the American public for that success.
Amazing place, this country ! Success has become a 'negative' on a political candidate's resume.
ProBusiness,
First...
NO ONE thinks they "deserve" some of that money. Jesus Christ, turn off Rush and Beck for five f***ing minutes. Holy s***, you are basically a Fox News parrot. Are you capable of thinking for yourself? NO ONE SAYS THEY "DESERVE" THAT MONEY.
The ONLY thing people say is that the rich need to pay their fair share. NOT "give me your money"... NOT "I deserve some of that"... They need to pay their fair share. That is it.
When Mitt Romney pays a lower percentage than most tax payers, and he does that because he hired an army of lobbyists to get that rate... there is a problem. You should NOT be able to buy the legislation you want, but that is what happens.
Obviously, YOU believe that those with money should be allowed to BUY the legislation they want. YOU believe that money should rule all. That is the difference between you and the rest of us. YOU fall to your knees and worship the all mighty dollar.
Second...
A business will expand or hire based on demand for their product or service. If hiring more people will increase production, improve efficiencies, and increase profit... then they will hire.
NOT ONE... not a single GOD DAMN business owner says: "I don't need to hire anyone, but my taxes are lower now, so I will throw my money away and hire someone I don't need, instead of keeping the money myself." That DOES NOT happen.
Businesses are "incentivized" to hire based on demand and potential profits... NOT healthcare or taxes.
our politicians don't get along is the point. and i'm certain they could bet bought through donations to not bring it up.
Just saw the 10 year projection from the budget proposal and 2022 spending deficit is estimated at still over 700 Billion. Yikes! That would probably have us around 24 Trillion in debt and close in Greece's current debt/GDP situation.
No stopping tax loopholes and nothing on entitlements
Where's the f-ing aspirin, apparently smacking your head against a brick wall over and over and over again gives you a headache. Who'd a thunk it?
BigACT,
And yet, those are the things that would fix the problem. Doesn't it just drive you bonkers!!!
I keep being told that businesses will not be affected by being asked to pay more so many seem to think that raising taxes and costs will not have a negative affect on the economy.
That being the case I am STILL looking for an answer: If a business owner has decided that now is not the time to expand or hire please tell me how increasing his taxes and increasing his cost of doing business (i.e. ObamaCare) will somehow make him change his mind and now expand or hire more workers?
The President is obsessed with raising taxes on the "rich" even though it will not raise enough revenue to fix the deficit problem. He is attaching provisions to raise taxes on the "rich" to everything he proposes even though he knows that the majoriety of Republicans in the house are dead set against it. I think that part of the reason is so that he can blame the Republicans for not getting things done. Of course the Senate has not passed a budget in years so what is the point?
The President said that he was against deficit spending and vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first administration. The last full fiscal year of the Bush administration was 2008 and the federal deficit for that year was 458.55 billion dollars. The last full fiscal year of President Obama's first administration is 2012 and for the President to keep his promise the federal deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars. The White House is predicting a deficit for 2012 of over 1.3 trillion dollars so the White House is saying the the President is not going to keep his promise to the American people. I estimate that the 1.3 trillion dollars that the federal government is borrowing this year is going to end up costing the taxpayers in excess of 10 trillion dollars to pay it all back in 170 years.
Sorry you have a headache Sarah, bless you little heart. Lol Easy on me now....that was a joke :-)
Actually debt does have a value in the marketplace. For example if i owner financed a property to you for say 100 grand, i could sell that debt for say 90 grand to someone else for investment. I have actually done that, seasoned the loan for 6 months, then sold it.
Another example credit card debt. IT could be defaulted on and i may go buy it for 30 cents on the dollar, then try to collect. Not a lot of value but there is a market and value. A lot of bad debt is sold to people who then try and collect. It's not producing a physical "widget" but it is a market place. And a very big one at that.
WOW, Mr. Obama wants $ 800,000,000 in aid for Arab Spring countries ?
And the Liberals are eating it up.
Now, who do you think I am voting for President next election ? Sure the heck is NOT Mr. Obama.
One and GONE !!!!!
BigATC,
LOL, watch it, buddy! It's a marketplace that doesn't serve the populace, only the bankers, that's my point. The banker's interests aren't aligned with those of the populace.
Indie: First, I would appreciate your responses in an adult format and don't appreciate you using god's name in vain. We are supposed to be having an adult conversation - I would appreciate if you tried to do that.
Now back to your comments: Ironically you hit the nail on the head and don't even realize it. You state "Businesses are "incentivized" to hire based on demand and potential profits... NOT healthcare or taxes."
BINGO!! We FINALLY got there!! You say businesses are incentivized to hire based on demand and potential profits but healthcare and taxes DIRECTLY AFFECT those two items!! Let's look at a scenario:
Say a company has the following Income Statement:
Gross Margin: $400,000
Operating Expenses (which include payroll and health insurance): $300,000
Gross Profit: $100,000
Taxes: $25,000
Net Profit $75,000
Now they look at their Net Profit as a Return on Investment (ROI) to determine whether this is the BEST use of their capital.
So now ObamaCare gets fully implemented and healthcare costs go up another $10,000 and taxes go up another $5,000. Let's look at the Income Statement:
Gross Profit: $400,000
Operating Expenses: $310,000 (due to the increased healthcare costs)
Gross Profit: $90,000
Taxes: $30,000
Net Profit: Now $60,000
Two quick points to the above scenario. First, this business will NOT hire any more employees (in fact they may have to let an employee go) and, second, this owner now must weigh whether making $60,000 (instead of $75,000) is the best way to use the capital invested. If not they might sell, liquidate, or whatever but this company will be DECREASING hiring and shifting resources (aka "capital") to a better use. End result is health costs and taxes DIRECTLY affect business and their decisions. Thanks for finally making that connection with your comment that Profit is the motivating piece of the equation.
Because of record deficits and the Great Recession -- thanks to Dubya and voodoo economics -- we must have a multi-prong approach to paying down the debt, and not just cuts in spending. We must increase revenue from fair taxation, creating jobs and growing the economy, which includes fair trade and "carrot and stick"incentives to businesses to manufacture in here in the US, to promote buying US goods (get rid of Walmart), and a long list of things.
If you make the richer richer, it only makes the rich richer and no one else. Anyone who believes it "trickles down" is an idiot. Anyone who thinks we can cut our way to growth lacks basic math skills and good business sense. Anyone who supports Norquist and blocking an end to tax evasion via loopholes is really an idiot. Anyone who supports Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare in order to give more tax breaks to the rich is worse than an idiot, they are treasonous.
The problem is never so simple or black and white. Enough with the ignorant right-wingers who can only comprehend sound bites and bumper stickers. Enough with the right-wing hypocrisy and being for it before they were against it -- Deficits don't matter (unless a Dem is in the White House), and tax cuts pay for themselves (unless it benefits the working class such as the payroll tax cut), and don't become like Greece (though the real problem was no one was paying their taxes, and now austerity is causing unemployment to skyrocket), and zero corporate taxation will bring jobs back to the US (my arse!). Enough!
We have already tried GOP/TP ideas, especially the last decade, and it doesn't work. Why keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result? Throw the Teapublicans out. Pay your damn taxes or STFU!
It serves me, i be a populace. Or is it i are a populace? There is quite a bit of private money in the debt industry that is not banks, i think you would be surprised. Just not something the average guy usually does.
It does drive me crazy watching politicians. Akin to watching a dozen 6 year olds fight over toys and parents trying to bribe them into behaving with ice cream.
BigATC, I disagree, the way to get money out of politics is to get money totally out of politics. No donations from anyone, no corporate donations, no pacs, and definitely no super pacs!!!!
We own the airwaves--make each network give a specific amount of airtime to each candidate, give the candidates a set amount of money and that is it.
The only place to donate cash would be to an election fund that funds the public financing of elections. If you as an individual want to help a candidate then donate your time.
@ProBusiness -- Proud of your education, are you? Why are you dealing with nickel and dime businesses?
You are talking about business operators - not investors. There is a huge difference. It sounds like you are dealing with people that mortgage houses, borrow from relatives, and take out loans to start a business. Those are working people - not investors. The tax code does not favor them.
The investors that are harming our economy are not governed by SEC rules - and - with your education - you know the requirements.
Look guys. Obama is TRYING. He is trying to cut the budget in a RATIONAL manner. To all those conservative commentators on this vine (and Sarah, as you seem more rational), let's compare the government to a family budget (hard, but feasible. The family of 5 makes $100,000 a year after taxes, and spends approximately $110,000 a year thanks to the recession. Now the family decide after racking up a debt of approximately $200,000 that they need to pay down the debt and stop their deficit. So they decide to draw out plans. The conservative adult offers a plan to reduce their annual loss of $10,000 by only cutting the family's spending from $110,000 to around $70,000. But he/she includes a $10,000 reduction in the pay to "discipline the family" to pay less. The liberal adult offers a different plan. He/she offers to reduce spending to $80,000 and raise the family income to approximately $110,000. They reason that cutting income will reduce the family's ability to cut the debt effectively and that increasing income will spare the family from making severe cuts to spending in necessary areas and allow them to pay off the debt plus interest in an effective manner. Now, which plan has merit????
The GOP is offering the former plan. In order to cut the deficit, they will focus on spending cuts (and in the case of Mitt Romney, the safety net) to reduce the deficit. As for taxes, they reason that cutting taxes will raise revenues through economic growth. So essentially, every Republican plan (including the candidates' plans) to cut spending tremendously over the next decade will few (if any) significant revenue increases and will actually propose revenue decreases, which they reason will increase growth (proof, anyone??). And in some of the GOP tax plans (Mitt Romney's), he plans to give approximately $140,000+ in tax breaks for millionaires by giving a few hundred to the job creators (middle class) and actually raising taxes on those making less than $40,000 (who can be considered as middle to lower class Americans).
The Democrats offer the latter plan. Obama offers a relatively balanced plan (insufficient, but a good starting point) that includes both cuts AND revenue increases. The Democrats offer to eliminate tax cuts for the wealthy, close loopholes for the wealthy and big business, and reducing spending in defense and entitlements. Then they offer a more rational plan for economic growth, which includes investments in infrastructure and education, tax breaks for manufacturers, and keep tax cuts for the REAL job creators (I would argue for the repeal of the Bush taxes for EVERYONE if only it wouldn't reduce GDP growth to 1.1% according to Ben Bernanke). I admit that the Democrats need to further their reduction plans, but they are much more rational than the GOP. Anyone who disagrees state your case.
Sarah, do you agree??? American Girl??? Feisty????
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
DEMOCRATS 2012
@Freshieee -- It is apparent the 'conservative' plans have nothing to do with reducing the deficit or paying down debt.
The 'conservative' plan is to redefine the role of government and how the economy should function. The 'conservative' plan is to promote free enterprise - profit taking, wealth redistribution, easy money. The desire to make the government smaller is simply to remove the gatekeeper.
The deficit and debt are excuses to promote economic and social policy that a rational populace would reject. The 'conservatives' do not want to fix problems - they want to justify the problems and make them permanent.
BigATC,
The populace, in general, has an interest in job creation. This comes through investment in American manufacturing, research/development, innovation, and improvements in current systems. All of which, in turn, increases the tax base and revenues. But why should the banks use their money to invest in all that, when it's so much easier to promote debt. That's my point. Creating debt doesn't create jobs, it doesn't promote innovation, it doesn't invest in manufacturing or new products. That is the way to reduce the deficit.
Freshiee,
This is all bologna. Really, it is. Both parties. I agree that Obama is by far the lesser of two evils, but this won't fix anything. What Obama needs to do, is get up there and say it flat out...
"Your politicians are bought and sold."
Get rid of the big money interests that are blocking what is essentially basic math. Get rid of the military lobbyists, and voila, they'll be no more interest in a DOD that's more bloated than my Uncle Barney after Thanksgiving dinner, they're goes military spending. Get rid of the healthcare lobbyists and voila, no more monopolistic health insurers and fee for service system that has an interest in us getting sick, there goes healthcare spending. Get rid of the Wall St lobbyists, and voila, welcome back Glass-Stegal, there goes bail out spending. That will allow us to use our revenues wisely, and collect them fairly, instead of collecting them in the way most likely to cut breaks to those rich enough to buy a politician or two.
Between the lobbies and campaign financing, our politicians are indebted to big money interests. Then, after they leave politics, they have cushy jobs waiting for them in these marketplaces, wielding their influence on the newest politicians.
Somebody, namely Obama, needs to stand the hell up and say, "ENOUGH!"
a
Freshiee, your example gives the one 100k to spend and the second one 110k to spend. How does that happen?
A common argument is "revenue" which i assume is a buzz word for tax increases. A Fascinated thing i found when i found a chart of tax rates that also had revenue the federal govt took in as a percentage of GDP. Going back to 1950 rates were as high as 92% all the way down to 28% and back up. Looked like a roller coaster.
The fascinating part was that revenue taken in as a percentage of GDP was almost a flat line at around 18% no matter what the rate was. Whether the rate was 90% or 28% the revenue/GDP stayed almost the same. It went slightly above and slightly lower but stayed almost constant.
Meaning if you raise rates you will get a higher percentage but less output. Lower rates you get less of a percentage but more output. Behavior changes as rates go up. What is the ideal rate? I couldn't tell you.
If you want actual numbers look at The cap gains rate changes over the last 30 years and it will bear that out. The one time the rates were increased was in 1987 the cap gains went from 20 to 28%. Did revenue go up? NO. The year before the rate increase we had somewhere around 350 Billion in cap gains revenue. For the next TEN YEARS revenue taken in was LOWER than 1986 revenue. It didn't increase again until the 1997 cap gains cut under Clinton when it went back to 20%.
All the numbers are available on the Bureau of labor statistics web site. All 3 cuts had increased revenue by the way.
BigATC,
I think it's, "You be part of the populace." :)
Smart taxes, smart spending. Not necessarily less or more. S.M.A.R.T. Smart, smart, smart.
Less where we can cut, more in the areas that we need to focus on. Tax the wealth in ways that are fair and create incentives for American innovation and manufacturing.
If government is too small, it will be ineffective and won't be able to meet our needs. If government is too big, it will be inflexible and incapable of meeting our needs.
If government is smart, it will work.
This attempt to simplify it and make it simply about more spending or less spending, more taxes or less taxes is BUNK. It doesn't work like that.
Sarah, the problem with your thinking is you make sense. I have just over 20 years in federal govt and it is a MASSIVE behemoth that is so inefficient it would make you sick if i told you what i experience. The times i have actually tried to have input, make suggestions, calls whatever..... i have basically been told to "sit down and shut up". Literally, i'm not kidding. You can basically take out the too small scenario and go ahead and insert BEHEMOTH in your thinking.
It is really sad the just massive amounts of waste that go on. You can take either side of the tax issue and assume more revenue and it won't matter. Every extra dollar we send up there they will spend 2 more. It's like giving more beer to an alchoholic.
Look at the govt report of 300 Billion in duplicate spending the GAO came out with. It just sits in committee dying a slow death in the senate and nothing will happen. After all there are jobs to be protected don't you know.
ProBusiness
First... I would appreciate it if you would not lecture people on using "god's name in vain" when you obviously to not follow the teachings of your god. Or did you conveniently forget Matthew 19:21 and Mark 10:25. What does your "God" say about your obsessive focus on wealth and what you should do with that wealth?
The way I see it, if you have free reign to disrespect your own religion and pick out the verses you want to follow, while ignoring the verses you do not like... I have free reign to disrespect as well. In fact, I would say that your insistence on treating your "holy book" like a Chinese take-out menu (picking and choosing what you like and don't like) is MORE disrespectful than a few letters strung together to form words.
As for the rest of your example, none of what you stated deals with demand. You focused on the cost of doing business. If, by your example, profits dropped because of BobDole-RepublicanCare (or Obamacare), then that would incentivize the business owner to EXPAND and INCREASE his business, bringing profits back to where they were.
Your rationale dictates that ANY increase in the cost to do business will result in the business owner just quitting. But costs have ALWAYS fluctuated, increasing and decreasing, and businesses have ALWAYS survived. Cost is not the only factor, many other things come into play. Your focus on ONLY costs is a clear indication of your lack of knowledge in the business world.
Basically, what YOU are doing is being a parrot for Bill O'Reily. You heard him say that if his taxes went up by 15%, he would just stop doing his show because it is too expensive. What you FAILED to hear is when Bill was put on the spot. He was asked: "So you are going to give up ALL the millions of dollars you make each year because instead of taking home what you do, it will be slightly less. So you are going to give it ALL up?" Billy boy confessed that he would NOT quit, and he would not give up all his money, he just wanted to keep as much as he could.
To imply that a small tax increase and BobDole-RepublicanCare (ObamaCare) will cause every business to just give up all their money and quit is beyond ridiculous.
What happened when the EPA put air quality restrictions on companies that pollute? Did the companies quit? No... they HIRED someone to monitor the air quality (creating a job) and continued running. What happened when companies could no longer use child labor, working them 12 hours a day? Did they quit because the costs were too high? No... they readjusted.
This idea that costs are the ONLY thing that business looks at is ridiculous and completely ignores the concept of supply and demand.
Wow, look at all these comments! Half of them are stories, stories about nothing. Make it simple and effective.
Obama is a joke and he is ineffective. - End of story.
Indie, getting off topic, the EPA regs you state may cost jobs. I have a cousin that works for Luminent Energy in Texas and they are being mandated to reduce sulpher dioxin levels i think around 65%. He told me they were going to sue the feds and if they lose 2 plants will be closed and around 500 people will lose their jobs. Including his. Haven't talked to him in months so i'm not sure how that is playing out now.
BigATC,
There are also companies that did the RIGHT THING and hired people to prevent pollution, toxic waste management, etc. Because one company is either too stupid, or too corrupt, to do the right thing does not mean it should not be done.
My point is that the broad generalization that regulations, taxes, or additional costs "kill jobs" is a blatant lie. In many cases jobs were created to meet these new regulations and costs.
I doubt Luminent is either stupid or corrupt and wonder why you want to call them names? They are just being mandated to do what cannot be done in a financially feasible way for certain factories, thus they have to close them. It's just business.
I don't broadly generalize anything. In some cases these regs will cost jobs, some won't. All the factors you indicate will affect cost, thus to meet margins prices will have to go up.
BigATC,
Alas, sense doesn't seem to cut it, huh, lol??? I'll just keep plucking away.
Heeeey, it's Sarah! my favorite Democrat! :-) I thought you had left us.
Ummm, i'm afraid not with the federal govt. There is a man behind the curtain nobody sees that just eats our money :-)
Sarah, you have to stop beating up on the symptoms. You do not cover why the loans were made. I can tell you first hand.
The Fed Lowered the standards for loan requirements Clear back into the 70's. The Fed said you only get so much for closing a loan. That amount was 1/3 what banks charged. The income requirements were less, the down payment half, and the interest lower than banks would charge.
When my wife and I applied for our first mortgage in March 1997, Our big bank told us they had already loaned out the federal reserve required minimum number of FHA loans. Each year the big banks have to make an allocated amount of FHA loans to be able to participate in the Federal Reserve - under our current system (central bank) you don't participate, you don't operate. We had to go through a mortgage company to get an FHA loan.
Lesson 1 Federal government doesn't know what a good loan is - banks do.
Lesson 2 If the banks don't make the loans in the way the fed wants, they cannot be part of the federal reserve system.
It was always assumed that big banks were discriminating against minorities when lending - so in 1977 the CRA community reinvestment act was passed. the thinking was this would get more homes into minorities hands. In 10 years It didn't help a bit. Pressure began to be applied by groups to who believe that minorities were still being discriminated against for loans - so Democrat proposed a bill to drastically expand the CRA investigative powers and penalties. Under this bill, banks could be investigated if they were simply accused of discriminating, if they did not have branches in or enough loans made in low income areas. Once accused or implicated on circumstantial evidence, instead of just the appropriate anti-discriminatory agency, all federal agencies would be involved. That got the bank attention and as of 1999, they started making loans per actual requirements.
Now you are making loans that you know are going to have a much higher rate of failure what are you going to do? Insure them, sit on them an hope for the best, or sell them ASAP. Well, being over half of the mortgage companies Big banks avoid making FHA loans) are only in the business of making money off the closing fees, the loans are sold, and sold in blocks, as a security investment to insurance, and banks.
Until 1999, homes packaged this way were considered an extremely safe secure investment. To think this packaging started taking place after 1999 is simply naive, what was new is mortgage companies who usually kept loans started selling them as good when they loaded them up with blocks they saw the early signs of high defaults on. The other thing that happened was banks wanting to get larger began swallowing some of these mortgage companies. I got the opportunity to as an office with one of the largest bank how their bank got off with so light of losses than Citi and BoA. Their officers actually examined what they bought beyond the required folio sampling used to get the okay to purchase companies and blocks. They realized that they were getting cheated, stopped making those purchases, and quietly tried to sell them quietly in quantities that would not attract attention. This bank didn't need a bailout - but the all-wonderful fed wouldn't take no thank-you for an answer. So, they took the money a re-payed it as soon as Obama permitted.
Lesson 3 even good people, even good companies will do bad things when put into impossible realities, if they want to survive.
There was never any regulation on tracking the transactions Keeping the banks separate from investment finance WAS the regulation to keep "problems" form occurring. But when Glass-Steagall was passed, the investigation into why the market crashed had not been completed. Because of the bank failures, it was assumed that the bank structure was the problem - it wasn't. After Glass-Steagall was passed, Senator Glass recognized that the bank structure wasn't the problem and that this law was slowing investment and therefore also slowing recover. Senator Glass is one of the few people - who actually campaigned to repeal a bill with his name on it.
BTW - The democratic majority could have re-instated Glass-Steagall at any time from 2009 - 2011. But they didn't, because they KNOW repeal of that law would make no difference now or in the future other than slow recovery even more than it is. Right now our recovery is the second slowest in history.
DB,
If you had actually read my posts, you would know that I bashed both Democrats and Republicans for this.
Second, your ilk will do anything to bring "minorities" into an argument and blame them. Twist it all you want, Fannie/Freddie are only responsible for 16% or the subprime mortgage crises. Furthermore, the government didn't decide who to give mortgages to, nor did Fannie/Freddie. The government said, "You can't discriminate" not "Get people into bad mortgages, than chop up those debts, re-bundle them together, bet on them, and insure yourselves so when it blows tax payers can bail you out." They provided investment funds to the PRIVATE BIG BANKS who made the decisions on who got loans and who didn't. Are you suggesting that only minorities got into bad mortgages or couldn't pay???
Finally, in the 50 years Glass-Steagall was in place, we had maybe one financial crises driven by the OPEC situation in the '70s. Prior to Glass and after the repeal of Glass we had a financial crisis about ever 10 years or so.
Your incredible desire to blame this completely on the Federal government is ignorant and shows your bias. Not that we weren't already all aware of that. If you actually read my posts, you will see that this is due to a combination of Wall St. and Washington, and the responsibility lays on the shoulders of both parties and the tycoons.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/dear-gop-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-cause-financial-crisis-subprime-mortgage-gse
If you really think it's as simple as "Fannie and Freddie did it", well, God help you.
The President's "Truth Patrol" here to clarify a few things:
Current Presidential Budget: $3.7 trillion
Current Budget Manditory Spending: $2.2 trillion (including $1.1trillion for Medicaid/Medicare and $800billion in social security costs) (59% of budget)
Current Financing of Debt: $0.25 trillion (6% of budget)
Current Budget Discretionary Spending: $1.2 trillion (35% of budget)
Current Projected Revenues for 2012: $2.6 trillion
Current Projected Deficit for 2012: $1.1 trillion
So if you look at these numbers you'll notice that we using ALL of the revenues to finance our debt and our required spending. We have ZERO dollars left for discretionary spending. Realizing that the required costs will go up (social security, healthcare, etc.) AND that we are borrowing more each year (so we'll have to finance that too), isn't it obvious that we can't afford discretionary spending now and even less so later?!?!
I'm not suggesting that discretionary spending needs to be completely stopped, however I'm settin up the premise that we are unrealistically expecting growth and additional revenues to keep moving in this direction. What happens if Europe's economy collapse? What happens if there is a global banking problem? What happens if there is a middle east war? Answer- They all send shockwaves to the US economy.
There is a bit being missed by many in all debates from both parties. Our president..puts forth a proposed budget..that is all he can do..it is our elected in congress who, because of the huge funds coming from lobbyist..and the politics of election cycles we are now in that have not done whAT THEY WERE VOTED INTO OFFICE TO DO. The actual passing of a real budget is entirely in their hands..and both parties have failed to get their respective job done. For the republicans..I have no idea what they are even in washington for since they have done nothing for the 99% of the people who I guess were foolish enough to keep relelecting the same politicans..or for that matter..to elect politicans at all. The same can be said of the democrates who have done little but bow down to the rantings of the wealthy and their lobbyist money. So far, the president has received blame for the failure of both houses of congress....and the republicans are playing that one hard...yet. other than more tax cuts for the wealthy that are handing huge support to the republicans at this time...have come up with no real ideas on job creation....which would help with the debt that these same politicans have helped to create. The past administration, Bush's, cut taxes for the wealthy to create jobs...the problem is that the jobs created were not in this country. I was always under the impression that this country was for ALL the people..not the few..it seems however, that is what our elected are driving toward today and have been going that way for years.
The question that comes to mind is this..is this country to be run by the wealthy few and only for profits until the country fails..or..do we as the majority take back our once proud nation for us all ? Votes and calls to our elected are needs to change what is going on in washington today....siding with blowhard republicans or democrates who have another agenda will not work for this nation . If becoming a third world nation is what the majority wants..we are it seems headed in the right direction. If remaining the top nation then things have to change..and it has to be for everyone...not the few. We are no longer the number one nation in the world..we will be lucky to be in the top 10 if politics continues the way it is going now.
Don't worry leeches B.O. is still going pay you for your inept vote:
Obama budget fails to tackle entitlements
"Obama's budget, released Monday, would stabilize the debt -- meaning the country's accumulated deficits would stop growing faster than the economy -- starting in 2018, according to White House estimates."
He kids, in 6 more years the boat will stop taking in quite so much water according to our absurdly optimistic estimates... it might even still be floating. Vote for me!
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/obama_budget_deficits/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3
So our President has decided to ignore promises that he made to the American people regarding deficit spending. The latest budget from the White House proves that. The President does not care about the debt, how much is it going to end up costing the tax payers to pay the money back, or the prospects of the federal government going bankrupt. There is no entity in existence to bail out the federal government if it goes under. The tax payers will for ever remain on the hook to pay back the money the federal government has been borrowing one way or another.
It is a matter of our current President's credibility. If he cannot keep his promises then he should not have made them in the first place. The President said that deficit spending was bad and then he proceeded to run up some of the largest deficits ever. The President seems to be convinced that we can spend our way to prosperity but so far it is not working. In early 2009 the Obama administration released a report that projected unemployment. The report includes a graph projecting unemployment vs time. There is one curve that projects unemployment without the stimulus and another curve showing unemployment without the stimulus. To date we are doing almost as well as if there were no stimulus at all. In other words the stimulus did not improve the unemployment situation at all yet it added about 800 billion to the debt and now the President wants to do it again. This debt is really getting bad. The administration is projecting that within a decade we will be paying more to service the debt than for defense. In his state of the union speech the President talked about starting to pay down the debt but he has never tried to explain what it is going to take to pay back all of this money we are borrowing. His administration is predicting that the debt is just going to keep increasing for at least a decade. I agree with President Obama that the deficits run during the Bush administration were bad but to date Obama's deficits have been much worse. With such a large trade deficit the money that was poured into the economy during the Bush administration did not solve our economic woes and the money that the Obama administration is adding is not helping either. More money increase demand for products and services but because so many of those products and services are produced in foreign countries our money flows out to foreign countries where our money helps job creation in their economy and all we are left with is debt. Until the trade deficit problems our solved problems in our economy are going to continue and most likely get worse. We spent quite bit of money during WWII but we emerged as the manufacturing power of the world. Now we are spending like crazy but are depending more and more on other countries for the goods and services that we need and use. Consider something as trivial as light bulbs. Apparently we do not make those any more yet we probably use more of them percapita that any other country in the world. We need professionals in our federal government who know what they are doing, not armature idea-logs who are just guessing. I believe that the current administration just hopes that things change for they really do not know what they are doing.
It is called redistribution of wealth
Don't want to get too far off the subject, but exactly how much of the United States does China own, how much does Iraq own, how is this proposal going to affect them? are we going to be sholdering this as well? somebody come back with a line or two about this..............ok.
China owns roughly 8% of our national debt. Americans own the vast majority of it.
Funny how the millionaires and billionaires at the top preach to the rest of us how WE need to make cuts and sacrifices for the good of the country while THEY get richer and richer.
Google: Romney's and Santorum's plans to cut Social Security and Medicare should they be elected to office.
Remember that fellow seniors come election time!
Yes and over the last Thirty years the GOP and their Corporate Masters have redistributed the wealth all to the top!
The Facts speak for themselves!!!!!
The Wealthiest 1% have had an 800% growth in WEALTH over the last 30 years.
The working Classes have had a 10% drop in wealth during the same period!!!!!
YES I would call that REDISTRIBUTING the PIE!!!!!
While the top marginal tax rate went from 70% to 34.5%. Amazing how that happens.
spg64
The Republicans have not been in control for the last 30 YEARS!!!
To Spg64:
The Republicans aren't in control now either; but they just vote "NO" on everything until the Democrats give them their tax exemptions in order to get some critical laws through.
Considering how grotesquely the Bush tax cuts redistributed wealth to the upper 1% (who don't, to be honest, need it...), I'd say this country is long overdue for a little re-redistributing to get the money where it can do the most good... in the hands of the consumers that drive our economy.
And Romney's effective tax rate is 15%! As is all those folks who don't work, but make money by manipulating stocks and destroying workers' jobs. It's a sick nation! No empathy and no honor.
They have not been in control of WHAT? In control of their mind OR in control of their soul?
If this is what you are refering to, I totally agree with you: they have sold both their mind and their souls to the Devil, to the lobbyists, and to the top 1%.
You are not even ashamed to write such an idiocy.
VOTE OBAMA-BIDEN 2012
To be more accurate, it is distribution of dwindling wealth.
Besides, what is Obama proposing a budget for anyway. Since he's been in office, one has never been passed. The budgets passed have been by the House, and the the Senate has never approved those or any others. The way things are going we might as well just rip up the Constitution, disband Congress and make Obama Chief thug for life. It's the way things are being run now anyway.
...if the leftists socialists and Ovomits Tax Czar who know nothing of working for what you earn come and take my redistribution of wealth out of my hands and see what you get
The 15% tax rate is on his capital gains, per U.S. tax law, just like it is on every other Americans capital gains. Interested in buying a bridge?
Looks like it's time to vote the Republicans out until they decide to work with everyone and not just for themselves or the elite 1% who, control Congress. Vote all of them out of office for this round and the next one!!
You kidding i can remember plenty of republican presidents and congress' in the last 30 yrs!!1
No, it is called fairness...would you understand that?
marlen..."Romney's and Santorum's plans to cut Social Security and Medicare should they be elected to office."
SS is over $7 Trillion in UNFUNDED liability.
Medicare is over $20 Trillion in UNFUNDED liability.
So yes seniors, to hell with future generations. Vote for who will keep the "Me" generation happy.
So after Obama can't run for reelection is the time for austerity......not while he still need to buy votes.......ok now it make sense.
Yes Jacques Strapp it is called income redistribution and unfortunately its floated all to the top over the past 3 decades.
OBAMA IN 2012 THERE IS NO ONE ELSE
At hs321: Social Security is NOT underfunded.
Check out the following short video on how the billionaire Koch Brothers are actively working to destroy Social Security: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY
hs321, So it's not just class warfare it's also generational warfare. Anyone else?
Margaret Thatcher said it best "Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money". That time is approaching very fast......... Take a picture of the riots in Greece because they are coming to a town near you quicker than you think............
Were any of you paying attention during civics class in school? The President does not make up budgets, that falls to Congress. God damn Republicans, your stupidity and repeating of lies is what is tearing the country apart. I'd tell you to quit watching news and read it, but since you don't even know junior high civics, I'd be worried if you even know how to read, and if you do, then can you actually comprehend what is being told to you?
That's true JH, but when they have been in control they have given the rich tax breaks, ran up the deficit, started wars under false pretenses, leaving the cost off the books. And then have the gall to blame unions for all our problems. Anyone who supports these sleazeball racist crooks is sick in the head.
trust2112 I guess you don't take your advice. The Dems in the House and the Senate have not provided a budget in over 3 years. The House after republicans took over in 2010 provided one last year as required by law but the Democratic controlled Senate still would not. So I guess you don't know what you are talking about. And I'm a moderate independent.
Its about time the greedy 1% "Pay" OBAMA / 2012 This is a "Guaranteed" The TeaPugCons down fall will be their love for the 1%, and dumping on the middle class.
hs321....problem is, the very wealthy use a system called "carry interest". Completely legal but totally unfair. Instead of being paid just a salary and bonus, which would be taxable at earned income rates, they arrange to have the bulk of their income paid as "carry interest". It is in fact a bonus, but is taxed at a maximum of of 15% ! This works for Hedge Fund Managers and those operating take over operations ( Romney ) and other bankers who manipulate their income to beat the tax rate. It is legal, just not fair. It needs to be changed. One way to change it is to simply put an annual limit on how much income can be taken as carry interest ( pick a number, say $2million ? ) and after that income should be taken as regular income and taxed accordingly.
hs321....problem is, the very wealthy use a system called "carry interest". Completely legal but totally unfair. Instead of being paid just a salary and bonus, which would be taxable at earned income rates, they arrange to have the bulk of their income paid as "carry interest". It is in fact a bonus, but is taxed at a maximum of of 15% ! This works for Hedge Fund Managers and those operating take over operations ( Romney ) and other bankers who manipulate their income to beat the tax rate. It is legal, just not fair. It needs to be changed. One way to change it is to simply put an annual limit on how much income can be taken as carry interest ( pick a number, say $2million ? ) and after that income should be taken as regular income and taxed accordingly.
ROTFLMAO
Only the most deluded and liberals cannot see through this phony assumptions. He wants to increase revenue by one trillion through taxes but even then we will still have a 1.33 trillion dollar budget deficit.
So this buffoon now needs three trillion more in spending?
"The problem is government doesn't take what it needs. It finds a need for everything it takes." Ronald Reagan
These are the result of thoughtful analysis, and will earn him what he deserves - Four More Years.
"and the time for austerity measures is not today" .... WTF?? If today is not the time, then when the hell is? Oh, when we are running surpluses, then we will talk about budget cuts ... really?
Ronald Reagan, who explained that tax loopholes which allow millionaires to pay lower taxes than a bus driver were "crazy", because they allowed the "truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."
Sounds like President Obama and President Reagan were both of the same mind with respect to the top 1% paying their fair share.
Austerity measures now, while the economy is still in a fragile recovery, would send the U.S. into another recession spiral. We saw that happen after the Great Depression, when Hoover cut government dramatically and immediately caused a second Depression. When do we cut spending? When the private sector is strong enough to support itself again.
Government is not a business; it is supposed to spend in a deficit during recessions, and build a surplus during strong economic times. Basic economics.
Texan... a little basic economic understanding would help you realize that the time for austerity is during a strong economy, not one just recovering from a horrendous recession. It's simple, really. When the economy is strong and revenues high, you clean out your nation's debts. When the economy is bad, then and only then should there be deficit spending as needed to restarting lagging areas of the economy.
Unfortunately for America, Bush blew it totally. He had a chance to pay our nation's debt down to nothing with the surplus Clinton left him, yet instead turned around and gave most of that surplus to the wealthy, started a couple unfunded wars and passed the prescription benefit without paying for it. He went into deficit spending at exactly the wrong time, now we're paying for his failure.
So yes, we need deficit spending still until we're out of the Bush quagmire. THEN it's time for austerity.
boo hoo, the tax cuts on the rich were predicated on the idea that their extra income will go towards benefiting the lower class through more jobs and higher pay, neither of which have happened, if you really want to support this idea of tax cutting your way to a good economy, why not actually hold the rich accountable to this idea and tie their tax rate to their economic impact?
Parrothead....you lost me with the Clinton surplus myth.
Everyone up on the old subject of Clinton knows he claimed a surplus by cooking the books and stealing from the SS Trust fund. There was no surplus.
The bottom line is that our country has a HUGE SPENDING PROBLEM !
Funding government growth is like putting a cancer on steroids. Obama wants to fund government expansion at every opportunity while redistributing wealth to those who have not earned it.
Thats why Reagan raised our taxes, Right ?????
Reagan has been dead for quite some time now .... try to stay up !
Only the most deluded and liberals cannot see through this phony assumptions. He wants to increase revenue by one trillion through taxes but even then we will still have a 1.33 trillion dollar budget deficit.
So this buffoon now needs three trillion more in spending?
"The problem is government doesn't take what it needs. It finds a need for everything it takes." Ronald Reagan
Yes, Ronnie boy has been dead for some time noiw...why to CONservatives and CONNEDservitives keep trying to channel him? "I'm like Reagan", "No, I'm like Reagan".
How many times has Barack Obama "channeled him up" as you say ?
The topic is a budget proposal coming from Obama that demonstrates his ongoing dedication to spending SUBSTANTIALLY MORE than our country takes in.
Obama's last budget proposal was so bad that it was voted down 98 to 0 in the Senate.
Technically, jim, America has both a spending AND a revenue problem. We spend more than we take in, and we are taking in less than we spend. There is a simple answer to our problems; unfortunately, too many people in Washington are deluded by trickle-down economics. It is basic math. When a business needs to overcome a shortfall, they can do one of two things; cut spending, which can lower productivity, or raise prices, which will cut into sales. A more effective strategy is to do both so you can get a balance. For example, you can negotiate with unions a more cost-effective pay raise that will save money, and can slightly raise prices to create more revenue. Democrats, although reluctant to cut spending, have been willing to negotiate spending cuts in return for promises of revenue increases. In fact they have gone very far in doing that. The GOP has not done that.
Here is MY deficit reduction plan. Hopefully it will work:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3472). Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by about 2022.
II. Economic Recovery Package
I'm curious to see how the entire looks but just looking at the combination of corporate tax cuts, payroll tax cuts and tax increases on the personal wealth seems like the perfect compromise to me.
1. Workers don't see there taxes go up for awhile longer
2. "Job creators" get the tax cuts the GOP says will spur growth
3. The wealthy will pay commensurate to their wealth.
Throw in the $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases and you have a very workable deal...until the House gets their hands on it.
I love how they still claim that after 30 years of it not happening.
They'll just cut back helping those in need in place of #3, and talk about how much money they saved everyone... because you know Granny doesn't really need her meds, right?
Don't you love how thw GOP calls business people "job creators" and then all the parrots on TV news repeat it as if it were true? Where are all these jobs? They are jobs creators for machines, China and lawn service companies who groom their lawns.
This renaming is an old propaganda ploy dating back to the Nazis. Read "1984" folks, all totalitarians use this technique, far right and far left.
2. "Job creators" get the tax cuts the GOP says will spur growth
Ya, GE who paid zero taxes had such a hugh hiring spree these last 2 years.
One more thing should be added to the list.
Any religious faction that involves themselves in politics, violating the separation of church and state, need to lose their "non-profit status" and pay their share of taxes as well.
Any religious faction that starts a business should also pay taxes.
Between cut-backs, increased taxes on the wealthy, adjusted corp taxes to help the "job creators", and taxing the meddling churches that involve themselves in politics, we will be able to get our country out of debt.
Yes, yes, and more yes.
Unfortunately, the Constitution says the gov't can't get involved in politics, not the other way around.
No, no and hell no ! When the federal government takes the aggressive position of demanding religious institutions must provide condoms to others, paying for it in the process ..... then government is involving themselves in religion ! Nice distortion attempt by you !!
So the Catholic Church giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of an amendment in MN banning gay marriage isn't an intrusion into politics?
jim - As for your comments in 4.8, the government didn't try to tell the religious institutions that they had to provide condoms. They told them that if they (religious institututions) wanted to keep receiving government funds, they have to provide birth control. It isn't that the government was forcing their policies on the religious institutions, they gave the institutions the choice to keep the govenment money (with strings) or opt out. Guess which option they took?
Sometimes you need to listen to more than the sound bites and excerpts taken out of context. But if the media did that they wouldn't be able to lead you along their agenda. Looks like someone distorted you.
No one has "distorted" me, but thanks for the attempted disparagement of my opinion .... because it does not agree with yours.
Perhaps you are incapable or unwilling to see this is merely another federal government grab for power that directly impinges on a point of religious belief.
Personal responsibility has been replaced by governmental mandates because "big brother" knows what is best for us.
Besides, what in the hell does any of this mis-direction have to do with an upcoming budget proposal that will, AT BEST, increase our national debt another $1.3 trillion. Even the park service will get more spending offered under the budget proposal than what they want !!
When does Obama propose a realistic budget with serious cuts to spending to live within our country's income ??????????????????????????????????
We could go back to the Clinton tax rate, and I would be ok with that. That means my taxes go up too. If we could start to pay down the debt. But we won't be able to touch the debt with budget cuts alone. I like Ron Paul's idea of shrinking the military as well. But the right wants to keep the defense budget the same even though we are pulling out of Afghanistan and have left Iraq.
Nice try gillanator
except in compomising to get a balanced budget, Clinton got those tax increase and in exchange cuts from congress. part of those increases combined with the .com bubble. One of the things that cause the .com bubble to burst was the alternative minimum tax. What it did was tax the holders in stalk for the exessive value of the stock - so those invested sold stock to pay the taxes, in conjunction with a bust in the profits. I actually know a lady who she was stil paying loans for him for part of his penalties incured from the AMT.
You know the Glover Norquist pets will scream at the injustice of expecting millionaires to pay more taxes when we have all those poor people who pay very little to no taxes.
If it weren't for the pesky poor, we'd all be rich.
If it weren't for the unions, there would be no middle classs.
Sara M,
One simply has to look at right-to-work states where unions do not have a stranglehold on power to realize the TOTAL INVALIDITY of your weak argument.
Unions are the reason Detroit is a ghost of its former being !
To silverfox (Post # 5):
In case you didn't know it, the poor pay taxes every time they go shopping just like the rest of the population (only they are extremely limited for the amount of shopping they can afford). And without jobs, they aren't able to buy anything to include food. However, the Republicans want to eliminate the food stamps. Some States charge tax on food, a basic necessity, that should never be taxed. And , "yes", there is a small % that abuse those food stamps privileges, which the right wing blows all out of proportion according to the real statistical numbers. But they will never be able to convince us that the elite have not abused tax privileges, bonuses, etc., which they never bring up in the discussion. It's such a big laugh with the GOP's propaganda on how the poor do not pay taxes.
The definition of poor varies though, Independent.
Not all of the 47-49% that pay no federal income tax are as cash strapped as they stereotype we come to think. Many are able to have good computers, smartphones, cable, etc.
It's why those that can, should be paying; even if it's $100. And I know many of those 47% can afford that.
@Jim If Unions are the problem why is there zero correlation between states that have collective bargaining rights and those that don't and state deficits and debt. That is because no unions just means more of the money goes to the business and corp's and not to middle class America. Why is it that a state like Georgia who just recently switched to a right to work state has seen its economy get worse. Answer because with out the middle class having a voice through the unions they get forced to do more work for less pay with fewer workers. Everyone talks about unions getting paid off as oppose to those supposed job creators of the 1% but in reality which one actually supports real jobs. It is certainly not the top 1% that has seen more accumulation of wealth than in any other part of history...
Ruken,
You are right on something for a change ! Some of the 47% to 49% not only PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, they actually GET MONEY BACK ... it happens through the earned income credit !!
It is actually a "negative income tax" of sorts.
@wofman, I said unions were the problem in Detroit. Now, the auto manufacturers are building most of their new plants in right-to-work states. Observe the growth of the auto industry in the South.
wofman6 - How much of Georgia's economic decline was a result of the whole economy and not just coincident with the conversion to a right-to-work state? You've given one example out of fifty (2% of the states). Does that negate all of the examples of the "unionized" states in a failing economy?
Independent thinker and patriotic american...
Pretty hard for obama to sign any budget proposal when senate leader reid won't create one in the senate to negotiate against with what the house has passed. It appears that senator reid is the biggest naysayer and he isn't from the right!
VWterry....
What a comedian you are, Any legislation passed by congress (including expenditures) has to be approved or ignored by the POTUS to become law.
I am sure that the door keeping you imprisoned in not understanding the fundamental of how laws are passed has been brightly illuminated by that flourescent green "EXIT" sign. ll you need do is push that bar in front of you. <end sarcasm>
Khalid - Their are more than just a few of us that understand that the masses want someone else to pay for their (masses) lifestyle. For a politician (aka obama) to promote this is a way to buy votes. Who wouldn't (rich or poor) want someone else to foot the bill.
What the politicians need to do (particularly obama) is to have everyone with skin in the game, not just the topo 2%.
FYI - If one does an analysis of what the obama (bush) tax cuts have reduced the federal revenues over ten years you would find that the 2% amounts to a loss of income revenue of $800 billion (by obamas reckoning in 4Q 2010? Yet he doesn't mention that the 98% has reduced revenues over 10 years by an estimated$3.2 to $2.4 trillion.
For me, that says let the obama (bush) expire across the board. But reduce expenditures as well.
Or have his veto overridden by a 2/3 majority in Congress.
No compromise, nothing gets done, Bush era tax structure expires - I'm all for that.
The Bush era tax cuts lowered taxes on ALL LEVELS OF TAXATION ! Allowing it to expire will raise taxes on everyone who currently pays taxes !!
Maybe you are part of the 47% paying no federal income taxes ?
I have a question. I have read your comments both pro and con. Are you all aware that in 2013 HR 4646 kicks in. This is a proposal written by two democrats one from New Mexico that charges you 1 percent on all of your bank, credit union transactions. Everytime you write a check, cash a check, deposit a check, transfer funds from savings to checking, you will pay a 1 percent charge to Obama. This bill has been written by democrats, approved by democrats, and they are just waiting for the ding-a-ling in the white house to get re-elected so he can sign it. But don't take my word for it go to your local bank or credit union and check it out. Thats how I found out about the 1 percent on the transfer of funds was where I bank. Now tell me about the evil republicans, corporate America, tax loop holes. Why hasn't Obama closed the tax loop holes, because he needs corporate's money for his re-election coffers. By the way this 1 percent will not be a tax deduction on your 1040 or any other tax form you use to file your taxes. Take out all of your last years bank statements, total all of your transactions then subtract 1 percent. Now do you still want him around for another 4 years. One thing, I know where you are going to get the bat after he gets your vote and takes the oath of office. But like I have said before, don't take my word for it just hide in the bushes and watch. Tell me middle class how much more can you afford?
I'd rather give that 1% to the government than to the banks.
And IF that bill ALSO charges 1 per cent on every single stock transaction, our deficit will shrink in no time!
You forgot to mention the 3% Obamy tax when you sell your house.
Does that 30% minimum encompass all income streams including capital gains, or is it for earned income only? To put it otherwise, will the tax increase include Obama's billionaire buddies like Mr Buffet, or will it only include those who earn their income through hard work.
Thanks vigon, you gave me my morning chuckle. I don't believe there is a billionaire who earns their income "through hard work". There may be some lowly millionaires who work hard but I doubt if a billionaire does.
Have a great day!
It includes tax increases for long term capital gains. People like Romney should be paying more than 14% taxes on money they didn't even work for.
Yes....let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, including the middle class.
To vigon-2763979
Where have you been lately? I hope you were not hidding under Romney's bed in one of his multiple houses.
YES, the tax increase will apply to Obama and to Buffet. They have already accepted it and they even called for it in many occasions WHILE your friends are out there screaming and yelling that they don't want to pay one dime more than the merely 10% they really pay in taxes (when and if they actually pay taxes). But this new tax will apply to them, too.
Get out and be informed. Do not limit yourself with the talking points and demagogery "InsHannity", "Faux Noise" and "CockRoach-in-Limbo" pour down your troath everyday.
Live and VOTE OBAMA - BIDEN 2012
You mean his billionaire buddy Warren Buffet, who has been supporting Obamas tax increase on the ultra rich like him? The same guy who thinks it is unfair that his secretary (like 99% of americans) pays less than him? That buddy ?
Hey why should I pay more taxes so a bunch of poorly educated underachievers in can pay less?
I'm sick of funding your parents grandparents SS and medicare that they did not pay for..
I'm sick of paying for 40 somethings on Tricare getting a weekly massage on my nickel...
I'm sick pf paying for prenatal and delivery costs through my insurance for other people...if you are going to play then you should pay
I'm sick of funding religious organizations with my tax dollars...I disagree with them and find that using my tax dollars to further your religion is offensive to me...
What America needs is a little more of US instead of me.
But you are a no good son of a bitch.
So your sick of paying for tricare are you. Next time your country is attacked you go. I have never had a massage on tricare but eleven surgeries to correct combat injuries I received protecting worthless scum like you. You and your ilk do not deserve the sacrifice given by the veterans of this country.
Thank you for your sacrifices Shark ! I appreciate you and mainstream U.S.A. does too !!
Rick-546746 You are a piece of work! The Republicants and you, are very, very delusional and hateful. The services you are talking about that people don't deserve are services they paid into, or are you to ignorant to know that? Not everyone who depends on these services for their survival are poorly educated, nor underachievers. You, my friend, are the one who seems uneducated with your crazy comments. Keep your ignorant rants to yourself, as you sound just like the crazy, loonies of the Republicant party.
Shark 1744823
I know it is not PC to say this but I get so sick of hearing how grateful I should be that you were out there protecting me. The fact is you volunteered to be part of what I see as a disgraceful war. We continually but in where we have no business being and yet for some reason I am supposed to be thankful of the people who volunteer to be part of this? I am not, do not volunteer and maybe our government will no longer be able to start any more unjust wars.
And for all the people who hate Bush for starting an unjust war and Obama for continuing it for an additional 3 years, are you grateful to all the soldiers that risked their lives to enable us to do this. If the wars are unjust you should not be volunteering to be a solider and fight in them.
Gee Rick. You should do a little research before spouting off. Your parents and grandparents and mine are the one that funded Social Security. They paid out enough in SS taxes to make the SS trust fund 3 trillion. That is the current SS trust fund 3 trillion with a T. It is too bad so many here don't realize that Social Security Fund is loaning money to the government. Not the other way around. That 3 trillion was paid from SS taxes over the half century plus by Americans who earned it. So go back to your talking heads on FORIEGN owned FOX news and listen to the tripe that Rupert Murdoch ( a foriegner not a US Citizen) wants you to believe.
Wow folks, can't we try to find some common ground instead of tearing each other apart? The fact is none of us (any poster on here, including you and me) is going to get to be King or Queen and have our total way about how things are done in this country. So we should embrace that we share this country with our fellow Americans (even with those we do not agree with). And it is time we start acting like it.
Almost every post on here has some level of validity (some at lot more than others but which ones is a personal opinion). Instead of searching for how to insult each other, how about we search for what we can agree upon. Then when we find something a majority find to be common ground, we can jointly move forward. Sorry none of us gets a veto right over what the majority decides. So my suggestion should minimize the extremes on both sides of the debate.
No one is going to win if all we do is fight. We will all suffer. Please think of countries where the political system has collapsed (early 1990's Russia, 1975 Vietnam, etc.). Then think of the years of misery the citizens endured. Do we want to risk that for our country? We can compromise if we want, or fight until we possibly slide down the slippery slop to a government failure.
So lets see if we cannot find some common ground so we can make our world better. Ripping people up may be entertaining but it is probably not going to make our function other than dysfunctionally.
I sincerely hope this post is tongue-in-cheek. It is, right? Right?
Okay, he wants another $840 Billion from the private sector. Where are the cuts?
There seems to be no plan other than for the government to take more money.
Obama has no plan. He is clueless with regards to financial matters. The only thing that "matters" to him is maintaining his power through re-election.
Really Jim? Because he stopped a depression.
Toasty - or just kicked it down the road...
Some argue that Obama is not clueless on financial matters. He does have a plan. The plan is not pro-America. Obama does not care about contraception for women, another smokescreen, but rather Obama cares about destroying the church - one of three legs America stands on. Obama does not care about a budget for America. Obama cares about imploding America to rebuild a socialist state out of the ashes - destorying freedom and individual liberties, another leg America stands on. For every decision Obama and his czars make it is to the detriment of America, it is in the plan. Obama's assault on the Constitution is to destroy the law of the land through wielding unConstitutional power at the level of executive power. It is the plan. The recent changes to NDAA that removes protections of Americans against the state is part of the plan. Gun sales to the Mexican cartels is part of the plan to build anti-gun legislation and leave American's less able to defend themselves is part of the plan. Not following federal law to restrict illegal immigration and build a broader nanny state base is part of the plan. Ever increasing debt with little action against it is part of the plan. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is part of the plan. Creating a divisive America through blaming others is part of the plan. Creating a socialist state is Obama's plan for America. A vote for Obama is a vote to destory America and the freedoms of all its citizens. He is a Castro, a Chavez, a Bill Ayers and a Rev Wright. That's the plan. Some people hold that opinion based on the calculated actions Obama takes.
Well, there went any credibility you might have had, Alim...
I just love it when MSNBC decides what I need to know about things.....HACKS!
How is someone making $250k a year a millionaire? For those that have never produced a job (i.e. Obama), I own a small business and "making" $250k a year is much, much different than bringing home $250k a year.
The reality is, my family will be fine. I will just cut one or two jobs to make up the difference if needed. See how this works now?
No actually they are talking about really bringing home $250 grand a year. This is not gross revenue, as you seem to believe it is, but actual net income, going into the pocket of the owner. You should be at least clear on that, it's a fact.
No one pays tax on what they make, they only pay after decuctions, etc. tax on the taxable amount. If that is 250K then you made much more than 250K during the year. Also your tax rate won't go up on anything except the amount over 250K. So taking home 250K a year will not increase your taxes but will give you a very nice life style.
If you own a small business and cut out the employees you will make less money and you will have to do more work unless your business is going backwards. Good luck!
No one pays tax on what they make, they only pay after decuctions, etc. tax on the taxable amount. If that is 250K then you made much more than 250K during the year. Also your tax rate won't go up on anything except the amount over 250K. So taking home 250K a year will not increase your taxes but will give you a very nice life style.
If you own a small business and cut out the employees you will make less money and you will have to do more work unless your business is going backwards. Good luck!
I will just take money out of the charity bucket to put in the tax bucket. I guess the government thinks it can do a better job with my charitable dollars than the charities can.
@!$%#
The federal government has proven its incompetence time and again. Now, we are looking at them controlling health care and totally screwing up that through Obamacare and all its massive regulations !
Ah yes, all its massive unethical regulations. Such as:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act)
Ruken, You are quite adept at cherry picking. I will bet that you are unable or unwilling to tell me how many new federal agencies, bureaus and departments are created by this massive legislation.
Don't hate.
I even provided you the link so you can tell yourself.
Don't pull that diingenuous bull$hit of trying to imply that I am a "hater" which is merely a crutch for failed liberal arguments.
By the way, you failed to answer the question ,,, by your choice or your inability ?
You right wingies are out of control .... the hatred you spew make you sound ignorant. Read the Affordable Care Act before you speak your misinformation. If the Republicants get into the WH, pray your dumb A$$E$ don't get sick!
Ruken
Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to
hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Forcing insurance
companies to cover preexisting conditions is like letting your get fire insurance
on your house after a fire and expecting the insurance company to cover the cost of the damage. This is one of the reasons rates are so high and some people are unable to afford it.
People with preexisting conditions do need help but the burden should not be placed on the insurance company, the purpose of Insurance is to protect against unforeseen events not preexisting ones.
Ruken
Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to
hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Forcing insurance
companies to cover preexisting conditions is like letting your get fire insurance
on your house after a fire and expecting the insurance company to cover the cost of the damage. This is one of the reasons rates are so high and some people are unable to afford it.
People with preexisting conditions do need help but the burden should not be placed on the insurance company, the purpose of Insurance is to protect against unforeseen events not preexisting ones.
I think that the "rich' would gladly pay a little more in taxes if they knew that by doing so the economy would turn around because the "rich" would have the most to gain. I doubt that the "rich" believe that increasing their taxes will improve the economy.
President Obama said that taxes should not be raised during a recession but he is proposing to raise taxes anyway. One approach would be just to eliminate special consideration for capitol gains income which will discourage investment and new jobs related to investment. Another approach is to eliminate charitable deductions in some way. Charitable organizations will end up having to curtail operations and eliminate jobs as a result. The federal government is pretending that raising taxes on the rich will have no ill effects on the economy and that the unionized federal establishment can take over and run things for more efficiently than the private sector can.
How is someone making $250k a year a millionaire? For those that have never produced a job (i.e. Obama), I own a small business and "making" $250k a year is much, much different than bringing home $250k a year.
The reality is, my family will be fine. I will just cut one or two jobs to make up the difference if needed. See how this works now?
So glad your "family will be fine." What about the families of those whose jobs you cut, Mr. Big Shot Owner?
Two different issues. The 30% is on those who make more than $1 million/year. The $250k tax will be the Bush tax cuts expiring.
jman, if you cut jobs just to keep from paying taxes, you're not long for the business world. The reality is, as long as those jobs are turning a profit for you, you'll keep them.
Isn't the $250k thing the Bush tax cuts expiring?
Nevermind BearDown beat me to it.
No actually they are talking about really bringing home $250 grand a year. This is not gross revenue, as you seem to believe it is, but actual net income, goingi into the pocket of the owner.
I'm starting to think JMan isn't a business man. Anyone in business would have to be more knowledgable than this.
Bear-
That is called unintended consequences, which are something that liberals are not too keen on comprehending. If you raise taxes on a corporation, will they just eat the loss? or, will they pass it on to the consumer (i.e. your good guy working class/middle class heroes). Likewise, if you tax a small business owner, he will find a way to (a) pass the tax on to the consumer, or (b) cut costs (i.e. labor costs, or a "job" if you will) to make up the difference.
This is not a fantasy world. Just because someone offers you a vision of a socialist utopia where everyone with money is happy to share with everyone who has no money, that does not make it a viable reality. Have you been watching the news from Greece lately? That is what happens when you keep going down this road.
And Jeff- come on, man. Be happy that the man's family is doing well. Just because someone is suffering does not mean that EVERYONE deserves to suffer. This may come as a shock to you, but our stations in life are the culmination of a lifetime of decisions. Two people do not go to bed at night, and overnight one is wealthy and the other is poor. Such sour grapes.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will touch a lot more people than the $250k earners. If the tax cuts expire completely, the Dems would have a lot of explaining to do, after saying for years that only the rich benefited from that program.
Will you cut jobs if there is a demand for your widgets??
Reality?? Supply and demand...that's really how it works.
joe paraceratherium, people sought wealth when the top tax bracket was 90%. What makes you think they will stop seeking wealth now?
Yes, there will be those who for purposes of greed will eliminate jobs to keep their share of the pie. More power to them, they aren't long for the business world.
ANYONE, who reduces their revenue to avoid a tax isn't a smart businessman. That would be like a guy turning down a raise because it would put him in a higher tax bracket using the logic that he doesn't want to pay more even if the end result is a net gain.
Didn't the top bracket even hit 99% at one point?
How about if the 47% of people that pay no federal income tax, help pay some? I agree that we all need to pay our fair share. How about the 47% with no federal income tax and receive a refund?
Actually my fater figured out it was not worth working overtime because after taxes the amount he made was not worth the time he had to give up to make it. He rather go fishing. In the same way a business owner may choose to make less wiggets, thus creating less jobs. The small amount of additional money he would have after taxes will not be worth the time he has to give up to make it. He will just go fishing or spend more time with his family.
jman3715,
I'm in the same boat with this proposal, 250k isn't what most people think it is. A large chunk of it is already taxed pretty heavily. Revenue/Income is hit, and then day to day business costs are becoming increasingly more expensive as other business owners that I depend on are also experiencing the money crunch. It is one thing to be a mega millionaire/billionaire like Walmart, but being a little fish in a big pond is becoming downright scary.
Cut jobs, or raise prices. I've been eating loses already to avoid doing one or both of these. Being a small business owner is only going to get tougher. Big companies get bail outs, little ones get taxed even harder. I just want to know what kind of person sleeps soundly at night knowing small businesses will be hit pretty darn hard by this.
Redistribution of wealth? Is that what you call taxes, balancing the budget and living within the Government's spending level and not borrowing money creating larger deficits by paying the interest? I call it sound economics and the way I would live my life with my budget.
Government economics and household economics are completely different. Macro vs. micro. Apples vs. oranges.
They do have one similarity though Clotho, at one point the debt will be so insurmountable that they will default.
I spent all my money and maxed out all my credit cards and I'm still in debt. What happened? I guess the next step is to borrow a whole bunch of money from my Chinese neighbor and give it to my union rep. and then take a loan out and buy some solar panels...
Obama needs to go in Nov. we cant stand 4 more years of nothing.
Joe, what the country really needs is a congress that can work together, compromise and not focus on being obstructionists. The president hasn't been the problem, congress has. For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would ever endeavor to become president of this country.
Of course, the Supreme Court, in their wisdom, has rarely been worse either. Any Supreme Court historians out there? Anything worse than allowing Super PACs?
The President hasn't been the problem???? What color is the sky on your planet? The President IS the problem. His lack of leadership and ability to do the job has resulted in the worst congress in history. His attitude of "I won" so we do it his way until enough protest, then he wants compromise. What a loser!
OMG Obama Must Go- worst president ever!
So I see Bill.........if all the Republicans will just 'cave' too the democratic idealogy, then this will be the compromise you're looking for. Not the fact that a republican and democrat can get together and assimilate their ideas. That, my dear sir, is compromise...but doesn't seem to work with liberal thinking. Why is it that liberal sh** doesn't stink, according to you.
Care to elaborate ?, I did not think so.
Joe66 (post # 13):
It's not Obama that has been voting no on everything and refusing to sign. But it is Congress that hasn't accomplished anything. Try looking back on the voting by the GOP. That's the only word that GOP knows. It's time to get rid of the 2 big GOP leaders, who open their mouth first before thinking.
Independent "Thinker" ...... now you are crossing the border of distortions and heading toward outright lies.
Quite a few bills have been passed by the Congress and sent to the Senate where Harry Reid is sitting on them .... maybe he is trying to hatch them while he suffers from some kind of "hen" complex.
Of course, if we follow Nancy Pelosi's "genius mentality", we'll just have to pass them to see what is in them. God knows Harry Reid has totally obstructed them from even being considered !
I have a plan for Obama. Since the Republicans are going to do opposite whatever he proposes, he should demand:
There! See how simple that is? He should be able to get everything he really wants.
Note: This is sarcasm. I suddenly find it necessary to point that out. The tin foil hat party is coming after me.
Wonder how many you'll get yelling at you even with the sarcasm disclaimer ;)
An Independent Thinker
Joe66 (post # 13):
It's not Obama that has been voting no on everything and refusing to sign. But it is Congress that hasn't accomplished anything. Try looking back on the voting by the GOP. That's the only word that GOP knows. It's time to get rid of the 2 big GOP leaders, who open their mouth first before thinking.
Independent thinker? You talk about the do nothing Republicans? How about reid's democrat senate? There are no 30 bills on his desk that he will not let come to the floor for an up or down vote. That's right, at least 30. Do you realize that the senate has not passed their own budget in 3 years, that's right, 3 years. Do you realize that the last time obama proposed a budget, that the democrat lead senate voted it down? Do you realize that there was a time that the senate had a filibuster proof majority and passed nothing? They could ahve passed everything. Do you realize that for two years, that Presidency, Senate, and house were controlled by democrats? What did we get out of them? A healthcare bill that will ruin our economy. These are the people that you are bragging about? We are still finding out things about this that pelosi promised. A lot that we do not like. I would to ask you liberals, how much is enough? What percentage is enough that would be ok for you to take from others? What percentage would be enough for the federal government to take from you, if you had $1 million per year? This is what Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson "
This is what you liberals want to get rid of. What our forefathers fought for. You would rather take from those who have earned it and give to others who would rather sit on their butts and do nothing. I have an in law that was a laid off carpenter. He sat for 59 weeks and collected his unemployment. Never looked for a job. When he was nearing the end of his unemployment, he applied for SSI and got it while collecting unemployment, then started to collect on his carpenter's pension. I remember the night obama was elected. They put a woman on tv that sad exactly "obama is going to buy me a new car". How is this for working for what you get? How sad and pathetic we are that we think we are entitled to what others have worked for? I am far from a millionaire, far from it. But, I grew up working for myself and earned my living. I am 50 years old and have worked every year since 16 years old. I never asked others to help me, I helped myself. There are jobs out there, people. You have to look for them. But why, when it is easier to sit and collect off of me as a taxpayer and do nothing? If I did not earn enough money, I would be working two jobs, but many do not want to work one. Some believe it is beneath them to work certain jobs. This is what liberalism and socialism is doing to our country. Liberals and democrats want americans dependent on the government. This is how they get your vote, especially when someone talks about saving our economy and then scare the heck out of people.
Mark --- give us a break! I am and 54 and have been working full time since I was 16 as well... never asked anyone for anything as well. And your point is? The Republicants are all that's wrong with this country. Greed and bigotry are their best friends.
What's wrong with this country is most people can't figure out fighting between each other solves nothing.
We are all falling for the trap politicians have set a long time ago. The more we blame it on each other, the stronger each party gets.
They laugh all the way to the bank while we think they are fighting for our ideas and values.
If you really want to be happy, don't worry about government and provide for yourself, neither party is here to help you.
Loren
BIGOT----one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ...a person who is intolerant and holds animosity towards others.
Mirror, mirror on the wall. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, doncha think?
Hockey puck.... you exactly described the Republicants and teaheads. Even though I didn't need you to tell me the meaning of BIGOT. The pot calling the kettle black is when the Republicants say that OBAMA FAILED. Only thing is, he hasn't and the Republicants can talk about it, but lets see them prove it. Economy is getting better, unemployment is down, and the President's approval rating is rising slowy... but indeed rising. THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.
So after the worst recession in decades are you surprised things are getting better? I am not going to judge this President based on what happened before he was President I judge him now.
The fact is more jobs have still been lost since his first day in office until now, than we have added. How is that for proof?
I don't care if you support Obama just support him for the right reason, not based on your emotional disdain for republicans.
The republicans aren't the ones blocking things. Every time the House sends a bill to the Senate, Harry Ried declares it dead on arrival. When the democrats had both houses, they decided to ignore their responsabilities and didn't pass or even draft a budget. It's their job to do so but they ignored the rule of law and the constitution. Dont think that the citizens didn't notice. Hope and change is coming in November. The end of the progressive/communism movement is coming.
I am buying a house, I am going to borrow 7000 from 401K, paying 2000 taxes on that. I dont like it, but this is the rules. Why can I pay taxes and milliners cant?????????
I dont want cuts like Greece is going to have on the middle class, If milliners of this country will not step up, we will have to pay. I know ideology of many of you say "why punish the rich", ideology of my wallet saying "I dont want f... my self" by protecting them.
LOL
You funny.
You actually think class warfare filth is going to change the economy of this nation? You think that actually raising taxes on ANYONE is going to change anything?
As long as this government spends over a TRILLION dollars more than it doesn't have, it doesn't matter how much you tax the "rich".
And the cuts "like Greece" are to the "middle class", it was to the public employee UNIONS that have bled the nation dry. Just like the UNIONS in this nation continue to get BILLIONS from the Federal government, although they work for private companies and state and local governments.
Since when is it up to the Federal government to pay the wages of a state teacher or public employee? Since when is it up to the Federal government to pay the wages of an automotive or SEIU employee? Or to give them exemptions to something the rest of the nation has forced on it just because they happen to support the "correct" party?
If you have to BORROW from your retirment to buy a house, don't you think you're being kind of STUPID? What if the house is worth less next year than what you're buying it for now? You going to want the rich to step in and help you then? You going to pee and whine about how you are getting screwed then?
You want to buy a house then don't BORROW, just like the Federal government does, to pay for it because then you're not only in DEBT now, but you've BORROWED ON YOUR FUTURE to pay for it.
Wake up!!!!
milliners make women's hats. Any you don't pay any tax on a loan from a 401K. When 50% don't pay taxes, how much should the top earners pay? Obama could take 100% of everything millionaires earn, and it wouldn't cover the what he spends. It the spending you fools!
Just to let you know why spelling is important. I realize you meant to sya millionaires, but typed milliners. However, milliners is a real word meaing hat makers, which completely changes the meaning of your post into gibberish.
Then maybe you should learn how to spell "say" before you change the meaning of your own post into gibberish, eh? Nice editing superiority fail!
Isn't it jibberish? Eh physician?
Dave, 10 percent of Americans pay 75% of all federal income taxes. When will you and others understand this? When will people like you understand that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax? Here is one of dozens of articles I can prove my point.
http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/
Do you realize that a person in New York City when you add in federal income tax, state tax, property tax, city tax that they are paying almost 60% of their earnings in taxes? So, you want to take more? How much is enough? How much would like the governments to take from you if you had a million dollars? $600,000 of it? That is what is happening in New York City. How would you like to work 60 - 80 hours every week and have 60% taken from you? Where is the incentive? There is none. Read this about your socialism that you want.
Folks,
Here's a great story that illustrates "Socialism" at it's finest:
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked; and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.
Could it be any simpler than that? AMEN!!!
And you people want to take away from earners and give to the lazy!!!!
Did any of you Socialists ever stop to think why the Soviet Union fell? Just read Mark's comments above and you'll get your answer. And they STILL haven't fully recovered from that sick mentality. This is the path Obama & Co. is leading us down. The path to destruction.
LOL... Neal in Denver. You're talking about spelling and you can't spell "say".
Why does Facebook control the entire reader commentary for every major news forum, MSNBC, CNN, NFL.com etc and growing. I don't think this is healthy for a Democracy to have one organization managing this entire effort in something as sensitive as freedom of speech. The news groups should allow for open forum from all contributing databases.
IOWs you want to have the ability to SPAM the responses. Tea Party, Chinese or just Republican dirty trickster?
LOL. No. Centrist, not affiliated with any political or corporate business organization. An American who doesn't like the idea of one organization, monopolizing the tools of free speech. If you can't see that, then maybe you should have your eyes checked.
YES! He is forcing the GOP to clearly define themselves as being the tool of the rich. Let them take that to the ballot box in November. They will find out that many Republicans and Tea Party members are not in the 1% of filthy rich as they too vote with the Independents to re-elect this great president. I predict a landslide victory for the President.
As an Independent Voter I am voting Democrat in every local and national election for the foreseeable future. The Republicans have to be sent a clear message that reminds them that they represent America, NOT just the rich Americans. Lying and trying to re-write history and their records with each new poll won't work anymore.
Vote Republican and lets try to get rid of the handouts.
AMEN to that Ed!
I'm a "Democratic" independent right now also!
Joe66...Get a life. There is no other way except to give Obama another four years.
Sure.
Can you provide me with a reasonable non-psycho candidate that thinks this isn't the year 1912?
@Master Joseph #17.2,
I do not believe we should "give" Barack Obama anything. If he wants the trust of U.S. citizens to be re-elected, he must EARN IT ! So far, Obama has failed miserably.
Harry Reid will never bring the Obama Budget up for a vote in the Senate.
He knows even the Democrats will not support it.
Mitch McConnel said he is so confident that Democrats won't vote for it, that he is going to bring it up for a vote. He might be right. Unfortunately, it's all political and about reelection. Even a good budget has a hard time getting votes, if the opposing candidates can talk about how someone voted to raise taxes. Even if it's only on millionaires.
But who knows? The Occupy movement has changed the national discussion, and most Americans want millionaires to pay their fair share. It would be terrific to see McConnel bring it to a vote, and then seeing it pass the Senate.
Dave
That is fine, I just want to see which "Democrats" don't support it. So I can "thank" them in polite terms, by phone, e-mails and letters.
Congress needs a enema, followed by plugging the entrance by the firm insertion of a nice pointy boot toe. Of course, when you're as big a a$$ as congress is, might take the whole boot.
Why would anyone with a fully functioning brain want a budget with a trillion dollar deficit built in to pass? Insanity, pure insanity.
You do live in a utopian dreamworld. The Occupy movement hasn't even changed their underware since they started, much less the political landscape. Perhaps they've helped define the base of the democratic party! They've discredited themselves as a bunch of petty beggars by sticking out their hands to ask their country what it could do for them instead of what they can do for their country. JFK would be proud of the Occupy movement /sarc
LOL
Khalid-2395974, don't grenade troll please. Mind rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
This is just the same old SPEND, TAX, and REGULATE mentality which will continue the decline of American. This is just more CLASS WARFARE directed against the very groups who are the JOBS CREATORS.
What we need is a "rally" for economic growth and jobs. As long as Obama pushes RECKLESS SPENDING, HIGH TAXES, and INTRUSIVE REGULATION we will not economic growth. Obama's class warfare rhetoric is divisive and will send more jobs and wealth out of the country. Obama is at war with individual freedom and the American Dream.
To AngryMobVoter
Please allow me to rewrite your posting the correct way:
"This is just the same old "SPEND the surplus", "give TAX cuts to the wealthy", and de-REGULATE mentality that will continue the decline of America. This is just more CLASS WARFARE directed against the very middle class and the very poor by the so-called JOBS CREATORS who by the way did not create any additional job during the Bush era. (except those created by Halliburton in Iraq, hiring Iraqi nationals).
What we need is a "rally" for economic growth and jobs. As long as Obama advocates for INVESTING in OUR EDUCATION, REBUILDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, asking corporates and filthy rich to pay their TAXES, and REGULATE WALL STREET excesses, we will have economic growth. Obama's plea for more economic justice, and his fight for the return of our jobs from where they have been outsourced during the Bush era will help the country recover from the poisonned gift he inherited from Bush. Obama will restore the American Dream."
AngryMobVoter, Thank you for lending me your words. I really appreciated.
@toloto, those must be some powerful drugs you're on. Let's review some facts that contradict your false statements:
Unemployment during the Bush years averaged just 5.3%.
Despite the economic setback caused by the events on 9/11/2001, Bush delivered 6 years of uninterrupted growth and 52 straight months of job creation adding over 8 million jobs to the economy.
Labor productivity gains averaged 2.5% each year, more than the averages of the '70s, '80s, and '90s.
After tax per capita income increased over 11%.
GDP grew by more than 15%.
Obama has added more to the national debt in three years than Bush did in eight.
toloto, why don't you tell us again how higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations leads to more jobs. C'mon, tell us. If corporations have less money in their hands, how are they going to hire more people? If the wealthy have less money to invest, how are new companies going to be financed? The government is the problem, not the answer. Obama has spent how many trillions trying to boost the economy and we're STILL at 8.3% unemployment, a number he promised us we'd never see if we let him SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. Just one in a long line of promises to the American people that Obama has broken.
"high 5!" @ toloto. You've got that right!!!
Way to go Mr. President. Now go to the American Public and keep repeating your message. FIGHT for it.
I'm ready to give President Obama four more years.
His budget is a good starting point for the next four years political activity.
After he's re-elected, the Democrats, and especially the Republicans, will need to compromise.
If the Republicans win, the country will be split more than ever!!
No one has split this country more than Barack Obama !
From his divisive "we won" and "you'll have to sit in the back of the bus" comments to his ongoing class warfare strategy, its quite clear that Obama wants to divide the country and hope his supporters are the bigger "half".
To jim-1455434
Stop repeating this ins-HANNITY "class warfare" claim "Faux Noise" and "CockRoach-in-limbo" are feeding you everyday.
The real class warfare is the one that The Repu-gnants-blicans have been raged (and still raging) against the middle class and the poor for the past 30 years.
The real class warfare is the one Wall Street conducted when they bankrupt the great majority of small investors and pension funds as a result of the de-regulations of the Bush era.
The real class warfare is the one that is transformiing our country into a bipolar country with 1% of the filthy rich at the top and the 99% poor at the very bottom, WITH NO MIDDLE CLASS in between, killing the Amedican Dream.
The real class warfare is the one YOU are raging against our dying middle class by supporting the not so hidden agenda of the GOP.
Get yourself together, open your eyes and
VOTE OBAMA - BIDEN 2012
@toolittle too,
So, you have no logical argument but to turn your rant against me ?
Earlier today, a poster for this article said the unions were the only reason we have a middle class today. You say there is none. Could you guys huddle up and get your story staight ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am part of the middle-class. My wife and I both work to support our three children. We plan for their future .... the very future that the "spend today and to hell with tomorrow" mindset of Obama leg humpers seem to ignore !
Don't try to tell me what to think or even suggest you know what I watch. You do not have the knowledge and I doubt you have the required background to understand the comments of a fiscal conservative.
Our country is well over $15.1 trillion in debt, the levels are rising faster than floodwaters in a flash flood and YOU have the outrageous GALL to tell me to open my eyes ???????????
Get YOURSELF together, take YOUR arrogance and put it somewhere where the sun does not shine. I'll leave that to your vast imagination because it appears you have more imagination than common sense.
@Jim. Tell it like it is, my friend. It's hard to argue against liberals re fiscal issues b/c they really believe that YOU MUST SPEND your way out of debt.
Know this my liberal friends...the CLOCK is ticking and if we don't take DRASTIC measure to reign in our SPENDING our economy will go in the dumper for another decade. The debt collectors are watching and if we don't CUT SPENDING our interest rates will rise QUICKLY and out of control. That will make the last 5 years look like a trip to Disneyland.
It is so simple. Our Fed budget is NO DIFFERENT then a company or household one. Yet people actually believe we can rebound via tax hikes while we continue to spend $$ out of control. Debt collectors know better and they (china) will continue to give us the rope to hang ourselves with.
If Obama had a set he would take a hatchet to the Fed budget. I mean SERIOUS cuts. Starting with resending obamacare and maybe wipe out a few govt agencies like Dept of Energy, etc.. But he (and others) are too concerned with RE-ELECTION.
Question: Did Obama and his wealthy friends voluntarily pay 30% income tax on their 2011 earnings? Why not lead by example?
Dahly....What an dumb comment???
Yes, actually.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0804/Billionaires-pledge-125-billion-to-Bill-Gates-charity-drive
As opposed to Romney, who said in a debate that he paid only what was legally required in taxes and not a penny more.
Federal Income Tax, not Charities, which is terrific. Look at the Obama's giving, prior to running for President; pitiful.
Read about who really gives of themselves in both time and money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
To Dahly (P0st #22.3):
Learn how to read first, and then try taking a quick look again at Obama's taxes. Get your facts straight rather than manipulating the truth !!
The President's timing is impeccable. He knows full well the Republitards are going to fight this tooth and nail...especially the tax hike on higher income brackets and he knows majority of Americas are sick of seeing the rich get richer while the middle and lower class keep getting bent over the tax table and ass raped. Try and talk your way around this one Romney! lol!
Aside from the unfair application of the tax structure on the taxpayers, people need to understand that the only true impact on deficit reduction is through BOTH cuts and revenue increases.
Sorry Teatards...but the whole "trickle" down theory just isn't working.
Isn't it interesting that, suddenly, using Natural Gas is Obama's great new idea to help bridge the energy crisis?
It was about 3 YEARS ago the Picken's Plan was announced but it wasn't important then! Now, at election time, a Conservatives idea has suddenly become Obama's idea?
I'll say or do anything to get re-elected! should be his bumper sticker mantra!
Why not make it fair and place a flat tax on everyone? If you live here you should be required to pay taxes on your income.
Because flat taxes are not fair.
They sound fair in a sound byte, but in the real world, they are not.
Let's do away with the non-profits. They should pay some taxes.
bumbulbe ... if you've never lived below the poverty line before, you just wouldn't understand the unfairness of a flat tax on someone making $18,000 a year in today's economy. A flat tax is only good if you're already paying taxes above what the flat tax would be. Obviously, someone making $200,000+ would love to pay a 12-15% flat tax, but a person making $18,000 wouldn't when the poverty income line is around $23,800 just to survive.
Yes, everyone should pay "income" taxes on income ... even the poor, however, all income generating sources should pay a "fair level" of taxes. The wealthy (due to their infuence in politics) have skewed the tax system in such a way to avoid paying their fair share. Over 70% of corporations don't pay income taxes due to the tax structure, and the very wealthiest 1%ers pay a lesser income tax rate than a man making $50,000 a year. You know its not fair, but if you're making good income, you're not about to agree with a tax increase on the wealthier Americans. Remove the tax loopholes and exemptions & suddenly revenue flows again. Its for sure, Supply Side Economics (the bible of the ReThuglicans) has been proven a failure time and time again ... its only created a Rich vs Poor class of Americans. Admit it or not admit it ... that is the FACT!
Explain why a flat tax is not fair? So you are saying that just because someone makes more and probably has more ability to make money then you do that they should pay a higher percentage? I disagree. Loopholes should be eliminated and the flat tax should be 15%. By eliminating the loopholes, EVERYONE actually pays tax and the rich pay more as a result of their earnings and investments.
No, its not right to tax people that are classified as working poor, wealthy people dont go to bed hungry. Grow up & try to be more responsible.
Charlie,''That's right" what a tool. And those poor qualify for food stamps and already get a ton free from me already. Liberal moron
Have you taken any economics course whatsoever?
Taking 15% from someone earning $10000 ($1500) is going to impact his lifestyle a lot more than someone making $100000 ($15000). That is why it's unfair.
Ruken ... it does NO good trying to explain "fairness" to a ReThuglican. If they have it, they'll say anything in hopes of keeping it. Your point is well made, but individuals like Chad would rather act "dumbfounded" at the reason why a flat tax of 15% would be bad on the poor. Keeping in mind, that over 35% of the US population earns an annual income AT or BELOW the $23,800 annual income.
Noooo, let's NOT tax the corporations (that pay taxes, and that's less than 30% of all corporations), and let's not tax investment income on the wealthy ... noooo, can't do that ... and let's not tax inheritance ... in fact, let's just NOT tax anyone earning over $100,000 a year ... get rid of ALL entitlements, SS, Medicare, Food Stamps, Unemployment, Wkr Comp, Min Wage, etc etc and let the middleclass (what's left of it) pay the REVENUE to this country ... that's the ReThuglican way. I swear the outer edges of outerspace couldn't be as empty as the vacuum between the ears of these ReThuglicans.
It wouldn't matter if President Obama wanted to add cheese to his hamburger; if a ReThuglican waitress was taking his order, she'd deny it to him.
The people are increasing expressing their irritation with this Republican controlled Congress, and in 2012 these idiots are going to be swept from the Hill. This is a party that has become controlled & run by the wealthiest; we'll see in 2012 if all that money keeps them in office. My bet is on the President & a NEW Democratic Congress. The President will not have to deal with these fools in 2013 ... the people ... the working class, will speak. Can the Republican run states skew the voting boxes by then? They're sure trying!
Mac....If you kept an open mind, you would see that the democrats are doing the exact same thing and blocking legislation from the republicans. I don't mind you being upset at the republicans, but it is hypocritical to give the democrats a free pass on this.
Yes yes!! Class warfare filth, that's the ticket to a successful run for re-election.
Don't worry that this President has spending at RECORD deficit level EVERY year he's been President. Don't worry that Democrats haven't put forward a SINGLE BUDGET for this nation in THREE years and have voted down or tabled every single budget that Republicans have put forward without a single minute of negotiation or compromise.
Never mind that when Obama demanded a ONE YEAR extension to the payroll tax cut that Republicans gave him not only that, but a ONE YEAR extension to unemployment benefits, and all he had to do was sign off on the pipeline. (Something by the way that had been studied for THREE YEARS, signed off on TWICE by everyone, and even the unions wanted it).
And Obama said no and attacked Republicans for not signing off on a "whole" two month extension from Harry Reid, which is NOW causing the same class warfare filth from YOU on the left and Obama as it did in December.
"The working class will speak" you say. You must mean UNIONS since the working class spoke in 2010 and there was the greatest turn around in House history and Democrats lost seats in the Senate too.
When you have NO RECORD to run on, like Obama doesn't, you throw out hate and filth in an attempt to divide the nation and try to demonize the so called "rich".
And fools like you actually go along with that garbage, instead of looking at how this present administration is more worried about "social justice" than they are about ANYTHING ELSE in this nation.
Jobs going overseas? Don't worry about the taxes and regulations causing it, demonize the corporations.
RECORD deficit spending? Don't worry about borrowing on your GREAT grandchildren's futures, demonize the "rich".
RECORD debt? Don't about KEEPING a promise to cut it in half or making a single spending cut, DOUBLE the debt in the next ten years.
You talk about "skewing the voting boxes"? You know what "skewing the voting boxes is"? When you show up to vote in Nevada and when you step into the ballot box, Harry Reid's name comes up on the ballot, ALREADY CHECKED. And who was in charge of "maintaining" these voting machines? Why the SEIU of course, without a contract, and without a single person actually monitoring their "maintenance" of the machines.
Tell us all about "skewing" again.
PAF - I would agree with you to some extent. However, the last 3 years has been nothing but "no" after "no" after "no" from hard line conservatives. Why? They are hell bent on seeing this fail no matter the cost to country. I believe the President has tried in earnest to extend a hand a compromise and, like sticking your hand in the cage of a rabid dog, got it bit off every time.
In case you didn't "read between the lines" in the President's State of the Union address, the gloves are coming off and it's about time before the maniacal right destroys this nation from greed, selfishness, ignorance and theological based political agendas. And before you start lobbing the "liberal" rubbish at me, I've always been very moderate in my views.
PutAmericaFirst ... you are absolutely RIGHT ... and I 'm not giving Democrats a free pass on this. I'll admit Democrats have, in the past, looked at the tax system as a cash cow. If there's one thing I do agree with Republicans on, it is a "Balanced Budget". Under normal (non-war) circumstances, our Federal Government should not spend more than the revenue it pulls in. And if Democrats are fortunate to regain Congress, I most certainly intend to pressure my local representatives to push for an amendment for balanced spending.
That said, its the ReThuglicans that have primarily created the mess this country is in. The citizens of this country overwhelmingly voted President Obama into office and with the adversities he's faced from 2-unfunded wars, Bush's tax cuts & Drug Medicaid plan (all unfunded by the way), and the fact that ReThuglicans verbally announced their #1 goal was to "Make Obama A One Term President" ... the nation is FED UP with Republicans. No, they won't admit it ... they're bought & paid for by Groover, Koch Bro, & a host of other groups controlling this congress with MONEY. That's ok, because the Republican Congress will be GONE in 2013, hopefully to take yet another 15 year absence. It couldn't come a day to soon!
Ever wonder why the Demos. mascot is a JACKASS????
Get OFF this vine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever wonder why the GOP's mascot is an elephant? Maybe its the resemblance of the party members.
See, I can play that game too Larry.
If Democrats and Republicans look like their respective party's mascots, then what are Independents suppose to look like? Mind you, I'm just asking that's all. Just wondering.
If president obama offered the wave a wand to fix all the govt's problems the republicans would find a reason to block it.
Even the top Democrat are blocking the Obama budget! NOW Democrat are running from Obama too? Just a great new page to the Obama Failure!
The Quote of the Decade:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Liberals everywhere will be in denial of your quote at #25.12. Thet will blame it on Dick Cheney.