• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan

Reducing the deficit, he said, is critical to the nation's future: "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control."

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts
TILT
 
Give with one hand, take with other.
 
History teaches that when the economy is hurting, the best recourse is lower taxes (promotes growth and job creation) and lower spending.

Obama's going with that OTHER tactic, spend money you don't have on government, and tax the priavte sector to pay for it. I'm sure we're all aware that history shows such tactics do little to help a recession... oh well, Time to start the Misery Index back up.
 
History teaches that when the economy is hurting, the best recourse is lower taxes (promotes growth and job creation) and lower spending.

Obama's going with that OTHER tactic, spend money you don't have on government, and tax the priavte sector to pay for it. I'm sure we're all aware that history shows such tactics do little to help a recession... oh well, Time to start the Misery Index back up.

I'm still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to start working.
 
I'm still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to start working.

You're a partisan, you'll never admit the good they did, nor will you be able to say "Oh damn, this Obama thing ain't working...."
 
You're a partisan

Rich.

, you'll never admit the good they did, nor will you be able to say "Oh damn, this Obama thing ain't working...."

What good did they do? And where can we see this 'good' at work today?
 
Last edited:
What good did they do? And where can we see this 'good' at work today?

If equal reductions in spending had occurred then the positive would be blindingly obvious.

Everyone who payed taxes saw a reduction in their tax rates because of those tax cuts.

For lower income people that frees up more money for lifestyle spending or necessities.
How can you consider that bad?
 
I'm still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to start working.
I guess you did not like the foundation Reagan created from the mess we inherited from Carter? Or the tax cuts that kept the recession shallow. A recession that made things a bit shaky after 911.

The situation Reagan inherited is similar to the one we have today (it's nothing close to The Depression), the catalyst again is the intrusion of government into the market. Into our lives and business environment.

This time the catalyst comes via the Democrats pet slush fund and social engineering scheme... forcing banks to make bad loans.

Reagan's actions provided the foundation for 25-years of growth.
Americans did the rest.

Now, there is a fork in the road, the path to prosperity and a faster recovery (Reagan/Smith/Freidman/von Mises/Hayek/Founding Fathers Path) or the path to stagnation, inflation, nationalization and delayed recovery (ObaMarx/Carter).
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?_r=1

On energy policy, Mr. Obama’s budget will show new revenues by 2012 from his proposal to require companies to buy permits from the government for greenhouse gas emissions above a certain cap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the permits would raise up to $300 billion a year by 2020.

Since companies would pass their costs on to customers, Mr. Obama would have the government use most of the revenues for relief to families to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would cover his proposals for $15 billion a year in spending and tax incentives to develop alternative energy.

Why collect $300 billion a year if you know that consumers will end up paying it and you plan to give most of it back? Oh, so he and Congress can decide who gets it back. That's it. Play favorites with other people's money.
 
I guess you did not like the foundation Reagan created from the mess we inherited from Carter? Or the tax cuts that kept the recession shallow. A recession that made things a bit shaky after 911.

The situation Reagan inherited is similar to the one we have today (it's nothing close to The Depression), the catalyst again is the intrusion of government into the market. Into our lives and business environment.

This time the catalyst comes via the Democrats pet slush fund and social engineering scheme... forcing banks to make bad loans.

Reagan's actions provided the foundation for 25-years of growth.
Americans did the rest.

Now, there is a fork in the road, the path to prosperity and a faster recovery (Reagan/Smith/Freidman/von Mises/Hayek/Founding Fathers Path) or the path to stagnation, inflation, nationalization and delayed recovery (ObaMarx/Carter).

It seems strange that you would bring Reagan into the conversation, seeing as his chief economic adviser a graduate of Harvard/Oxford and a staunch, Reaganite conservative, “Martin Feldstein” seems to think that the stimulus of government spending is better than tax cuts.

Indeed, according to a recent quotes that I have read he contends that for ever buck we spend on stimulus, we get a buck and a half in return, as apposed to the seventy five cents for a tax cut. :confused:
 
If equal reductions in spending had occurred then the positive would be blindingly obvious.

Everyone who payed taxes saw a reduction in their tax rates because of those tax cuts.

For lower income people that frees up more money for lifestyle spending or necessities.
How can you consider that bad?

So then you can not show where I can see these tax cuts at work today?
 
So then you can not show where I can see these tax cuts at work today?

They are working, existing and functioning today.

The "invisible hand" works whether or not you agree. If the tax rates were higher it is possible that the recession could be worse.

Tax cuts are not a magic pill but in the over all scheme of things they do help push the economy up.
 
They are working, existing and functioning today.

Show me where and how then.

The "invisible hand" works whether or not you agree. If the tax rates were higher it is possible that the recession could be worse.

Maybe. Ifs. Somehows. Invisible hand.

Tax cuts are not a magic pill but in the over all scheme of things they do help push the economy up.

So then you should have no trouble showing me the effects of the Bush tax cuts and how they've helped in the grand scheme of things.
 
Show me where and how then.

Give me some time to get the results.

But I'll suggest that the investment in stocks now,even though it is low would be lower because of the previous increased capital gains tax and payroll taxes.

Maybe. Ifs. Somehows. Invisible hand.

I can't predict the future, I can only speculate based on previous tax policies in earlier years.

In my opinion the "invisible hand" is a fact.

So then you should have no trouble showing me the effects of the Bush tax cuts and how they've helped in the grand scheme of things.

If the government is withholding more money from investments and payroll then people will have less money to spend of wants and needs, that is a direct and obvious effect.

It should be obvious that it has a direct effect on today.
 
Is it a problem to have an Ambitious budget plan?
I'd rather there being something remotely resembling a plan, than nothing at all. I bet that would make for a good thread: "Obama: No Plan, Our Economy is SOOO Screwed, LOL".
 
Is it a problem to have an Ambitious budget plan?
I'd rather there being something remotely resembling a plan, than nothing at all. I bet that would make for a good thread: "Obama: No Plan, Our Economy is SOOO Screwed, LOL".

It is not really that but he plans on raising taxes to cover some things.

The best bet would be to keep taxes the same and cut spending across the board.

After the reduction in debt he could then look to cut taxes even further. We are loosing our competitive edge in the taxes field.
 
So then you can not show where I can see these tax cuts at work today?

Sure, I'll give you an example. My dad got a tax cut from Bush and used that money to buy things for his business and family. Multiply that by a few million and you'll have a general idea of how they are working.

But this misses the point: there are a multitude of variables that could offset the effects of these tax cuts, thus making it nearly impossible to identify the specific consequences they are having on the economy.

Example

Effect: The tax cut permits a business owner in Indiana to expand his operation.

Offset: A house is burned down in a California wild-fire.


Multiply these variations by a billion and perhaps you'll understand why asking a linear question about a nonlinear system makes no sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom