REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Re: The dead-in-the-water budget

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, February 16, 2012 09:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 387
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The proposed 2013 budget that President Obama unveils today is the Democratic Party leader’s election-year response to what is certain to be one of the major issues raised during the upcoming campaign. What will Democrats say when asked how they will bring down the deficit?

Obama’s answer: tax the rich; reduce spending, but more gradually than Republicans; and shift priorities from war to infrastructure.

The document, whose broad outlines were released to reporters late Friday, is as much a philosophical statement as it is a spending road map.

Deficit Reduction -- The president has accepted the deficit reduction goals of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission, which called for a $4 trillion reduction in projected federal deficits over the next decade. The Obama budget reaches the magic $4 trillion number by calling for slightly higher taxes than the commission. Instead of $3 trillion in budget cuts and $1 trillion in higher taxes, Obama would cut spending by $2.5 trillion and raise $1.5 trillion in additional revenue.

The plan will lower the deficit in 2013 to below $1 trillion for the first time since the onset of the Great Recession. To the consternation of his allies on the left, the president has accepted the spending cuts in the Budget Control Act that was enacted last August to end the debt ceiling crisis. If re-elected, Obama plans to continue budget constraint over the rest of his term, bringing the deficit down to $575 billion by 2018.

• Taxes -- The administration wants to avoid what it calls “draconian” budget cuts proposed by Republicans by raising taxes, primarily on the well-off. Though all the Bush-era tax cuts are due to expire next January, Obama proposes to keep them for the lower middle-class while letting them expire for families earning over $250,000 a year. As outlined in his State of the Union Address, he would also create the equivalent of an alternative minimum tax for anyone earning more than $1 million a year so they pay at least 30 percent of their total income.

• Entitlement savings -- On the spending side, at least some health care programs will be on the chopping block, allowing the president to say he has put entitlements on the table. The president will call for another $360 billion in reductions in the projected growth of Medicare and Medicaid, which would be on top of the $500 billion in reductions included in the Affordable Care Act. One way of doing this is to raise the premiums for higher-income beneficiaries. While this is clearly less than the sharp cuts in entitlements called for by Republicans and deficit hawks, the president could wind up being attacked from both the right and left for gutting seniors’ Medicare.

• Stimulus spending -- To keep the economic recovery going, president will continue to push for new stimulus programs that have been routinely rejected by his Republican opponents. His budget will include a call for $50 billion of new transit projects, $30 billion to rehab schools and $30 billion to help hard-pressed states keep teachers, firefighters and policemen on the job. It also assumes the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment insurance will continue through the end of the year.

To pay for those programs, the president is proposing new taxes on banks and oil companies. Banks would have to pay $61 billion in new taxes over 10 years in return for the financial assistance they received during the 2008-09 crisis. Oil, gas and coal companies would pay an additional $41 billion by having 10 different tax breaks eliminated.

• Other programs taking a hit -- Apart from proposing new taxes, the administration also is seeking program cuts in some areas to avoid mandated automatic cuts prescribed in last summer’s budget deal. These include reductions in agriculture subsidies, reductions in home heating assistance for the poor, and eliminating Saturday mail deliveries by the postal service.
• Transportation -- The administration also wants to conclude negotiations over the next transportation bill, which is funded by the gasoline tax. The plan would spend $476 billion over the next six years.

• Finally, the president sharply reduces spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are winding down. While this has already been anticipated, it was still in the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline budget and can be used to pay for programs like maintaining physician salaries in Medicare – the so-called “doc fix.”

The White House says its plan will shrink the budget deficit to 2.8 percent of gross domestic product by 2018, which is below the 3 percent goal set by the Bowles-Simpson commission. While the target would go a long way toward meeting deficit hawk demands for a long-term plan to bring the budget into primary balance, its call for higher taxes means nothing of significance will happen until the voters have had their say. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/13/Obama-Seeks-Middle-G
round-with-7-Step-Budget-Plan.aspx#page2

I hope we DO get our "say", because I like it. I'm willing to accept the stuff I don't like and I like a lot of the places he's chosen to cut.

Of course it's all for naught, as the Repubs will continue to fight for more and more cuts and will flatly refuse to up the taxes on those rolling along comfortably while the rest of us struggle. And I'm sure the predictions on how much would be saved and lowering the deficit are candy-covered dreams. C'est la vie.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:18 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I am not at all satisfied with this budget, which I suppose doesn't matter since it will never be passed.

First, the object isn't to reduce the deficit, but rather to eliminate it. This budget continues to add to the national debt.

Second, 'Sharply Reducing' the funding for wars does not impress me. The wars need to End, immediately. The only funding needed are the funds to bring the troops back home.

Finally, Agriculture subsidies don't need to be reduced. They need to go away. Growing food is something we do well here in America. It's one of our last great industries. It doesn't need to be propped up at all.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Never heard of the word "compromise", have we? (just joking)

Sign at OccupyMarin: "Be realistic...demand the impossible".



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:23 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well, I don't mind compromising on opinions. Like the Dems want more taxes, and the Reps want more cost cutting. Those are two paths to a common goal. Those two paths can be argued over.

But there are some facts to deal with, too. One of those facts is that we need to reduce our debt, not increase it.

They can compromise on opinions all day, but if they're going to compromise on facts, it amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "Lalalalala! I can't hear you!"

So my primary objection is, I want a balanced budget. No more debt. Then we can start working on reducing it. If folks can spend tons of money while also balancing the budget, I'll be more inclined to give their accounting a fair shake. But any budget that doesn't have zero increased debt is a non-starter to me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA



You wanna talk cost cutting, well, besides the war machine, there's the war machines little brother, foreign aid.

This is ESPECIALLY repulsive when one of the major recipients of it, a so-called-ally who is nothing of the sort, launders the money and uses it to buy our own politicians and get them to send more foreign aid in an ever expanding scam which has gone on for years.

I oppose all foreign aid so long as there is even one starving american on our home soil.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:59 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Yeah...

Quote:


In fiscal year 2010, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:

Total economic and military assistance: $52.7 billion



Foreign Aid, also known as 'payoffs.'

Unsurprisingly, the majority of our altruism comes in the form of military aid.

I'll second your motion.

--Anthony




_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Posit: If spending money increases cosumption which increases revenue beyond what is spent, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If spending money shores up infrastructure so that infrastructure won't need more spent on it for the next say thirty years, rather than letting the infrastructure collapse which causes more and more expensive repairs, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sure, it hasn't been done right, but it's helped. Do you really believe that if we cut, cut, cut everything we could reduce the debt? That's been proven not to be the case. Nor would raising taxes; compromise is some of each, working in their own way to raise revenues and GDP.

The concept is to bring us back as much as possible to where we were before (while I doubt we'll ever get completely back there) so that taxes on goods and income bring in more revenue. If you have more coming IN, it helps you pay the debt. Kind of like taking out a mortgage so you can fix up your house, rather than letting it rot around you to save money in the short term, only to have to spend more later on.

I don't like it, I don't think Obama or anyone ELSE likes it. But your opinion reflects that we should have let the auto manufacturers go broke, when they are now (supposedly) coming back strong. The old addage that you have to spend money to make money. There is MUCH we can do to cut spending, and I'm all for it. I just don't see it as the complete solution, given the situation we're in now. I don't think there's ANY "good" solution except to keep on going and hope we can get to a point where we can start paying it down.

Of course, given government's willingness to spend, that's gonna be tough if not impossible. I still think it's a better option to do BOTH than to just do one and hope it works. Then, too, saying Democrats just want to raise taxes and Republicans just want to cut spending is kind of absurd, don't you think, when you look at what Republicans have been willing to spend in the recent past--and currently? From what I've seen, they're more than willing to spend to achieve their agenda, putting government programs in place regarding abortion and other social issues which COST, not SAVE. JMHO.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

If you have more coming IN, it helps you pay the debt.


Hello,

Almost.

If you have more coming in (through greater tax revenue) it gives you the ability to pay the debt.

If you have less going out (through spending cuts) it gives you the ability to pay the debt.

However, this is not what's happening.

What's happening is that the cutters want to cut HERE so they can spend THERE (but not on debt.)

The Revenue people want to earn MORE so they can spend MORE (but not on debt.)

Nobody is really trying in earnest to pay down the debt.

I'd like to see the debt paid down.

In 2008, $242 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the debt, out of a total tax revenue of $2.5 trillion, or 9.6%.

That was in 2008. It has surely gotten worse since then.

You could have at least 10 percent more revenue by eliminating our debt. Or 10 percent less taxes, if that's your preference.

Continued deficit spending and increased national debt will see the revenues continue to decrease, or taxes continue to increase.

Eventually we'll be in a place where there will not be money for anything we want to do, unless we print it and devalue our currency. That will also get us to a place where there will be no (good) money for anything we want to do.

It's important to remember that every cherished project, every altruistic goal, every bridge, every road, everything everywhere that might be important to you is threatened by an ever-escalating debt.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree that
Quote:

What's happening is that the cutters want to cut HERE so they can spend THERE (but not on debt.)

The Revenue people want to earn MORE so they can spend MORE (but not on debt.)

That's a problem with government, not one side or the other. To me, we're in a fix, and and we have to get OUT of that fix before we can TRY to get them to pay down the debt. Cutting programs doesn't get us out of the fix. Increasing revenues has a better chance ALONG WITH cutting. But right now the cry is nothing but "cut, cut cut" from the right, while it's "cut and tax" from the left. That is my only point, that if we do BOTH, we have a better chance.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I agree that
Quote:

What's happening is that the cutters want to cut HERE so they can spend THERE (but not on debt.)

The Revenue people want to earn MORE so they can spend MORE (but not on debt.)

That's a problem with government, not one side or the other. To me, we're in a fix, and and we have to get OUT of that fix before we can TRY to get them to pay down the debt. Cutting programs doesn't get us out of the fix. Increasing revenues has a better chance ALONG WITH cutting. But right now the cry is nothing but "cut, cut cut" from the right, while it's "cut and tax" from the left. That is my only point, that if we do BOTH, we have a better chance.










Hello,

Doing one thing badly or two things badly impresses me not at all as a solution to a problem.

When budget item #1 is "Pay all interest on debt + 3% principal" I will be very, very impressed.

If the budget at least doesn't borrow more money, I will be mildly contented.

Cut, Tax, Do the Hokey Pokey. If these criteria are not met, the budget is a failure.

It's all just a juggling act.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
2 NYC cops assassinated in retribution for Brown and Garner deaths.
Mon, December 22, 2014 00:30 - 38 posts
The ruble nosedives
Mon, December 22, 2014 00:11 - 15 posts
How psychopaths control society, and why we don't do anything about it
Sun, December 21, 2014 23:04 - 57 posts
No war on women - GOP goes to war WITH women, and WINS !!!!
Sun, December 21, 2014 16:52 - 6 posts
McCulloch Responds to Criticism
Sun, December 21, 2014 08:14 - 11 posts
ICYMI - Mars 'may' actually have life !
Sun, December 21, 2014 00:18 - 5 posts
Sydney Siege
Sun, December 21, 2014 00:08 - 57 posts
US Cuban Embargo Ends
Sat, December 20, 2014 23:42 - 13 posts
The predictions thread
Sat, December 20, 2014 21:20 - 300 posts
Tooday's Collegium Gradutates
Sat, December 20, 2014 17:56 - 35 posts
Ferguson
Sat, December 20, 2014 16:20 - 127 posts
Greece may reject austerity; does a Grexit follow?
Sat, December 20, 2014 15:42 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS