Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

Boo Radley said:

Exactly right. but it isn't just Washington. It's the disconnect the public has that factors into this as well.

Click to expand...

Especially when everyone says "we'll eliminate earmarks as part of cutting spending" yeah, while everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room ~

"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)

Boo Radley said:

Exactly right. but it isn't just Washington. It's the disconnect the public has that factors into this as well.

Click to expand...

Boo you should know better than this. Social security is not a driver of the current deficit, even the president said so today at his press conference. It needs to be adjusted like they did in the 80's to insure it will be viable down the road. Same goes for medicare although the problems are harder to fix.

Politicians seem to be throwing social security and medicare into the pot because it is a good scare tactic. remember those programs are funded by seperate taxes. Neither program is being funded by general funds. Also putting that money aside shows just how difficult the problem is, which none of these pols want to acknowledge.

washunut said:

Boo you should know better than this. Social security is not a driver of the current deficit, even the president said so today at his press conference. It needs to be adjusted like they did in the 80's to insure it will be viable down the road. Same goes for medicare although the problems are harder to fix.

Politicians seem to be throwing social security and medicare into the pot because it is a good scare tactic. remember those programs are funded by seperate taxes. Neither program is being funded by general funds. Also putting that money aside shows just how difficult the problem is, which none of these pols want to acknowledge.

Click to expand...

Driver? Not sure that is the word I used, but the largest components of the budget involve Medicare, SS, and the military. You have to address that if cuts are the way you want to go. I would target some specific cuts in the three, restructure in some cases, and increase taxes as we move forward. These things provide a service, and are important. However, leaving things as they is not wise. And if the deficit is a concern, you have to propose a plan that will actually reduce, and not just elect republicans and forget about it.

washunut said:

Boo you should know better than this. Social security is not a driver of the current deficit, even the president said so today at his press conference.

Click to expand...

1. it is projected to be in the near future
2. if you give me back 7.65% + payroll 7.65%, you've left some wiggle room for increases in other tax rates some, effectively making elimination of entitlements able to potentiall "bring in more tax revenue". It's all coming from my pocket either way right?

The OP hints of the reality. The budget is intended to be BS, and most presidents would do this. He's put things in there that have already not gotten traction, he knows it won't.

What you're seeing is evidence of how government doesn't work well, with the buden of running too much of our economy. Too much is tied up in politican's hands. Goes for repubs too, Bush was probably the single most incentivized person on earth to NOT increase taxes...but he did. That's how broken government is when trying to centrall plan an economy.

What's going to happen is everyone including Obama will ultimately ignore that budget, and they won't take action until after the election, ouch. Of course, a system that can't function on a routine basis because of elections...well that's a broken system, and you know it. But once elections are over, they will meet in back rooms where we can't judge their behavior, and they will work out a compromise on budget. And the theme of it will be, kick the can down the road again. You know it, I know it.

That's how they work, not because Obama is incompetent, but because that's how a political government functions...like a crazy idiot drug addict, with bad manners. If I hate Fidelity investments, I take everyting out and move to UBS, or hell, hire someone to deal with Fidelity. I have choices, I can make immediate corrective action, I can make it work. Govenment? We're all just watching the tragedy infold year after year. I say tragedy only beacuse they have so much of our wealth to fumble around with. Cut them down to $1.5T budget and it's just a sad drama rather than a full blow tragedy...tolerable.

The never should have passed permanent hand-outs in the form of our modern entitlement programs. It should have either been unconstitutional and ensured to be in the future, or it should have been a temporary measure due to a specific, transient, crisis. Instead, they leveraged crisis to make it permanent, and now you can never get a majority to go take money from seniors. You have to ask the younger generation, to sacrifice EVEN MORE to pay them off...well, **** that, you know what they will say? Let's just kick the can, just like they taught us how and showed us it was OK.

Boo Radley said:

Driver? Not sure that is the word I used, but the largest components of the budget involve Medicare, SS, and the military. You have to address that if cuts are the way you want to go. I would target some specific cuts in the three, restructure in some cases, and increase taxes as we move forward. These things provide a service, and are important. However, leaving things as they is not wise. And if the deficit is a concern, you have to propose a plan that will actually reduce, and not just elect republicans and forget about it.

Click to expand...

First, being a democrat I have no interest in getting republicans elected. Social Security and Medicare are self funded through payroll taxes as you may know. While I agree that long term they are not viable and should be fixed now, that will not reduce our current deficit problem. So if you want specifics, look at what happened in the 80's with social security. They increased the age for retirement and increased the wage limit. This should be done now and should probably be automatically adjusted every decade using real actuarial assumptions. As to Medicare, probably have to increase the age requirement and also increase the payroll tax as this is more costly than any previous assumptions. The military should take a huge haircut. I am in favor of getting out of Afghanistan which saves $100 billion a year. I would also close foreign bases and get out of NATO. The goal would be to reduce military by 100-200 billion annually.

So real cuts and taxes for real problems. No pointing fingers back and forth about who did what when.

Mach said:

1. it is projected to be in the near future
2. if you give me back 7.65% + payroll 7.65%, you've left some wiggle room for increases in other tax rates some, effectively making elimination of entitlements able to potentiall "bring in more tax revenue". It's all coming from my pocket either way right?

Click to expand...

see my response to boo.

washunut said:

First, being a democrat I have no interest in getting republicans elected. Social Security and Medicare are self funded through payroll taxes as you may know. While I agree that long term they are not viable and should be fixed now, that will not reduce our current deficit problem. So if you want specifics, look at what happened in the 80's with social security. They increased the age for retirement and increased the wage limit. This should be done now and should probably be automatically adjusted every decade using real actuarial assumptions. As to Medicare, probably have to increase the age requirement and also increase the payroll tax as this is more costly than any previous assumptions. The military should take a huge haircut. I am in favor of getting out of Afghanistan which saves $100 billion a year. I would also close foreign bases and get out of NATO. The goal would be to reduce military by 100-200 billion annually.

So real cuts and taxes for real problems. No pointing fingers back and forth about who did what when.

Click to expand...

As what comes in for medicare and SS doesn't cover what goes out as I understand it, then it does contribute to deficit. In the beginning, again as I nderstand it, more were paying in than recieved benefits, making it viable. Today, with fewer people contributing than need the services, and with people living longer, a good thing mind you, it eats up more than comes in.

I am not suggesting the program be done away with, but without some changes, it likely won't stay viable. better to tackle them now.

Yes, I do see you make some suggestions, and these are effectively cuts, meaning less money will be paid out, and by cutting when you can use the services, you make a cut in the money that will be spent.

And as best I can tell, we largely agree.

Boo Radley said:

As what comes in for medicare and SS doesn't cover what goes out as I understand it, then it does contribute to deficit. In the beginning, again as I nderstand it, more were paying in than recieved benefits, making it viable. Today, with fewer people contributing than need the services, and with people living longer, a good thing mind you, it eats up more than comes in.

I am not suggesting the program be done away with, but without some changes, it likely won't stay viable. better to tackle them now.

Yes, I do see you make some suggestions, and these are effectively cuts, meaning less money will be paid out, and by cutting when you can use the services, you make a cut in the money that will be spent.

And as best I can tell, we largely agree.

Click to expand...

I think that the inflows for social security and medicare still outpace outflows. The concern is next decade as the boomers retire en masse.

Jetboogieman said:

"But the economy is bad , we can't raise taxes to pay down the deficit, it'll be worse!".

"But the economy is good, we can't raise taxes to pay down the deficit, it'll make it bad!".

Pretty much what I get from these people.

Click to expand...

you know what I'd like to get from "you" people, is what you think would be an acceptable tax rate .... Top end something that we would never go over .... Something else I would like to get from "you" people ... is why is welfare a life long system for people that aren't incapable of working? Why is it that "you" people think that the best way to fix any of our social programs that are broken and not working, is to throw more money at them, and never worry about fixing them?

Seeing I'm part of "them" people, maybe you like to answer for "your" people

I seem to remember a long winded post of yours in another thread telling the American people that they can over come this mess we are in, well let me tell you something, we don't stand a chance of it .. when you post things like............. "Pretty much what I get from these people.".............as long as we continue to divide, we won't over come a damn thing, and your other post in the other thread ..... just goes to show your own Hypocrisy of how people should come together only as long as they think the way "you" people think

The way I see it .. you are tossing around your liberal view, and don't even have a dog in this hunt

Boo Radley said:

Might not be my choice, as I woudl support just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But, the concept that there needs to be an increase in taxes is sound. It is just a matter of which ones.

Click to expand...

No the answer is quit spending and stop all subsidies

Catawba said:

I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room ~

"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)

Click to expand...

More fuzzy math. It depends on the economy getting better which is questionable with Obama as president

ptif219 said:

More fuzzy math. It depends on the economy getting better which is questionable with Obama as president

Click to expand...

What do you mean that the tax cuts for the rich depend on the economy getting better?

ptif219 said:

No the GOP has a mandate that came with the voters choice in 2010. The GOP is trying to get rid of bad law that will put a fiancial burden on taxpayers

Click to expand...

Actually, the GOP mandate was to fix the economy.... the idea of repealing healthcare was a minority position, even on election day.

A Clear Rejection of the Status Quo, No Consensus about Future Policies - Pew Research Center

BTW... what steps have the Republicans taken to fulfill their mandate since their election?

ptif219 said:

So Obama is trying to get tax increases that already failed.

Click to expand...

The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.

ptif219 said:

Shows how incompetent he is.

Click to expand...

Supporting current tax policy in order to deal with a massive revenue shortage is "incompetent"? See, I would be more likely to say that the people trying to eviscerate the budget and cut taxes in the middle of a revenue shortage were the incompetent ones, but perhaps incompetence isn't even the right word for Republican politics: More like corruption.

ptif219 said:

Republicans, who now control the House, are signaling they will be even less receptive.

Click to expand...

Good. It's important that Republican priorities be on full display. The American people are being asked to sacrifice with smaller budgets, and are then being told that people who make 6,000 times more than they do should get tax cuts and contribute even less to the nation. What the Republican Party thinks of the American people is abundantly clear.

ptif219 said:

The plan unveiled Monday includes tax increases for oil, gas and coal producers

Click to expand...

Good. This would slightly defray the enormous external costs they impose on the economy.

ptif219 said:

Wealthy taxpayers would have their itemized deductions limited

Click to expand...

Oh no! The poor, poor wealthy! How can Obama victimize them like this???

ptif219 said:

"These policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today," Obama said in his budget message.

Click to expand...

Thank you, President Obama. I would have been a lot less diplomatic, but I'm glad we have a President who is so amiable toward people who give no consideration in return.

Troubadour said:

The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.

Click to expand...

Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.

Zyphlin said:

Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The taxes went up the following day. There is no debating that. I think everyone is arguing past each other.

If The tax cuts were written in a way so as they stop after ten years, during the next presidents administration, then you could say that taxes went up under that president, though I think the honest way to put it is to say that the president let the tax cuts expire, but you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase, as no bill was passed in order to raise taxes. That's like saying Obama declared war on Iraq because the guy before him did so.

roughdraft274 said:

If The tax cuts were written in a way so as they stop after ten years, during the next presidents administration, then you could say that taxes went up under that president, though I think the honest way to put it is to say that the president let the tax cuts expire, but you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase, as no bill was passed in order to raise taxes. That's like saying Obama declared war on Iraq because the guy before him did so.

Click to expand...

I agree, you can't argue that the president passed a tax increase. You can argue the President ALLOWED for a tax increase.

Similarly, you can't declare that Obama passed a "tax cut" either, because the tax's from one day to the next did NOT go down...they stayed the same. You can say he passed a "tax extension" or argue that he didn't allow for a tax increase.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too....you can't say that he wasn't pusing for a tax hike when he wanted part of the bush tax cuts to expire but to say that he was pushing for a tax cut when he wanted parts of the bush tax cuts to be extended.

Obama pushed to allow for a tax increase and in the end signed off on allowing for a tax rate extension. He didn't pass a bill to specifically raise taxes, nor did he pass a bill to specifically lower them either.

Zyphlin said:

Its a continuation of the current law, its a raise of the current tax rates. If the rates is "X" on one day and "X+15" the next day the rates went up. There's no other way to spin that. Now, they went up because the current law was allowed to sunset rather than because new law was passed to raise them...but the fact that they went up from what they were the previous day is undisputable.

Click to expand...

Very well, that is an accurate description of an event - i.e., "taxes increased." But you are describing that event as a specific action when no specific action is taken. It is not "a tax increase" - this phrase has the connotation of some agency being involved. The reversion to prior rates was included in the same law that passed the tax cuts, so the reversion is not a tax increase, but the expiration of a tax cut. "Expiration of tax cuts" is the valid statement. To refer to them as a tax increase is clearly deceptive spin. They were never intended to be permanent tax cuts. Never, at least, as they were advertised to the American people - who to do this day continue to rate budget priorities more highly than those tax cuts. The Republican Party needs to get to work representing the American people and stop trying to rob them on behalf of rich campaign contributors.

Troubadour said:

Very well, that is an accurate description of an event - i.e., "taxes increased." But you are describing that event as a specific action when no specific action is taken. It is not "a tax increase" - this phrase has the connotation of some agency being involved. The reversion to prior rates was included in the same law that passed the tax cuts, so the reversion is not a tax increase, but the expiration of a tax cut. "Expiration of tax cuts" is the valid statement. To refer to them as a tax increase is clearly deceptive spin. They were never intended to be permanent tax cuts. Never, at least, as they were advertised to the American people - who to do this day continue to rate budget priorities more highly than those tax cuts. The Republican Party needs to get to work representing the American people and stop trying to rob them on behalf of rich campaign contributors.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, the whatever you choose to call it, was extended, by a Democratic house, a Democratic senate, and signed by a Democratic President. So exactly how has this anything to do with Republicans?
If your beloved liberal democrats we so intent upon getting the revenues up for the government, then why didn't they just let the tax cuts expire as they were meant to be?

Catawba said:

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts.

Click to expand...

It's like saying the reason I'm broke is because I don't make enough money...meanwhile I make $80K/year and gamble it all away.

That's the liberal argument though, not the 800lb gorilla. That these programs that were put in place because of a crisis (Depression, war), are *vital* to our nation, and so, naturally, since they *must* be paid for, you have to raise taxes? And of course, since the people who needs these *vital* things can't actually afford it, we'll force the people who don't need it, to foot the bill. And then we'll run our political campaing on continuing those handouts to the majority, which gives us enough votes to compete. That's obviously a biased analysis of the argument, but you get the point.

Catawba said:

What do you mean that the tax cuts for the rich depend on the economy getting better?

Click to expand...

Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguements.

washunut said:

Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguements.

Click to expand...

Where the hell did you get the $70 billion figure?

ptif219 said:

No the answer is quit spending and stop all subsidies

Click to expand...

Let me know when that happens. Hell, let me know when a majority of Americans call for that. :coffeepap