PDA

View Full Version : We've Had The Spending. Here Comes the Taxing...


revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 11:23 AM
If the deficit DOES ramp up to 19 trillion, well, we only need to tax every man woman and child in this country $63,000...no biggie.

Democrats are tax and spend. They were tax and spend, they are tax and spend, and they will always be tax and spend. You asked for it, America, and you got it!


http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/47350622.html

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama today challenged Congress to force itself to pay for new spending as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.
The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new increases to federal benefit programs such as health care by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts — a ''pay-as-you-go'' system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.
Not noted by the president: today's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called ''PAYGO'' rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.
That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.
Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.
''It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s — and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt,'' Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.
''Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for,'' he said. ''They're not free, and borrowing to finance them is not a sustainable long-term policy.''
Republican leaders, critical of the Obama-championed $787 billion stimulus package and other deficit spending, called the president disingenuous.
''It's as if the administration and these Democrat leaders are living in an alternate universe,'' said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. ''The quickest way to save money is to stop recklessly spending it.''
Obama's call for binding legislation comes as a reward to moderate-to-conservative ''Blue Dog'' Democrats who are big believers in pay-as-you go. Their votes were crucial to passing a congressional budget blueprint that generally follows Obama's budget.
The House and Senate already have their own PAYGO rules, but have routinely found ways around them. For example, a bill to effectively double GI Bill education benefits was enacted last year because of a loophole in congressional rules.
Obama's ''PAYGO'' plan would also require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere in the code, though exceptions are made for extending President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts that are scheduled to expire.
The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high.
The deficit figures flow from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout and the cost of the economic stimulus bill. Obama has defended the massive stimulus plan as essential to helping pump some life back in the economy, one that is still shedding jobs but showing more signs of life in recent weeks.
''The fact is, there are few who aren't distressed by deficits,'' Obama said. He said restoring a pay-as-you-go method under law would force lawmakers to deal not just with the politics and crises of the day, but also remain fixed on the nation's long-term financial health.

MACH1
06-10-2009, 11:43 AM
I'd comment on this, but I don't want to be accused of looking at the wrong piece of pepperoni.

GBMelBlount
06-10-2009, 12:08 PM
I'd comment on this, but I don't want to be accused of looking at the wrong piece of pepperoni.

:chuckle:

Now THAT was funny!

revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 12:20 PM
He makes a valid point, though. When Tony gets a look at this, if he even attempts to make some kind of statement, he'll probably find the least relevant sentence and attempt to tear down the whole argument based on that.

But it's all here in black and white. The budget was SUPPOSED to be balanced by fiscal responsibility and cutting out the fat. That's what Obama campaigned on, at least. Well, what we've had so far is spending that would make drunken sailors ashamed, and now the initial rhetoric that will eventually lead to massive tax increases. This is how it starts. God knows how bad it will be before it ends.

Is anyone actually surprised by this massive bait-and-switch?

atlsteelers
06-10-2009, 12:43 PM
the truth is all of politicians are responsible for the deficit from the democrats to the republicans. i like the president but overall all politicians have one goal - how to enrich themselves. from gingrich and edwards both preaching moralitly while banging another women while their wives is battle illness. they are all crooks and we are the suckers

Blame game and facts: How the U.S. surplus became a deficit
Reality check » Business cycle, Bush policies linked to most of federal government's deficits.
By David Leonhardt

The New York Times

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Barack Obama's agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country's choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Obama -- responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders -- met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.

The story of today's deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush's policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Obama.

The first category -- the business cycle -- accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It's a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

Wall Street bailout

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies -- together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Bush and supported by Obama -- account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don't cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

'He's not fixing it'

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: "Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he's not fixing it."

"And," he added, "not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse."

When challenged about the deficit, Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. "There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care," Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn't clear whether Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won't be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Obama isn't on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren't, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Obama would increase the deficit -- but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. "The GOP is not serious about cutting down spending," the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

"Things will get worse gradually," Auerbach predicts, "unless they get worse quickly." Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won't be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 12:57 PM
One problem: The War. For or against it, it carries a tremendous weight when figured into Bush's budget problems and deficits.

Obama was against the War from the start, and one of his many campaign lies WAS to end the war almost immediately. So, by continuing and expanding the war effort (which is, of course, reasonable), he carries on and expands upon the Bush deficits, probably exponentially.

My thing here isn't to exonerate Bush. He made many mistakes. What I'm saying here is that Obama is making many things worse, and, what's more (and to my mind the REAL issue here) is the duplicity and outright dishonesty of the guy. He was supposed to be all about change, and that makes him being just more of the same somehow even worse.

And his blind followers take this all to an even lower low in their failure to acknowledge ANY faults in the man or his policies, even as they continue to mount and are becoming a giant white elephant in the proverbial room. I'm continually amazed at their collective ability to sugar coat or just simply ignore all the mistakes being made.

GBMelBlount
06-10-2009, 01:03 PM
He was supposed to be all about change, and that makes him being just more of the same somehow even worse.

And his blind followers take this all to an even lower low in their failure to acknowledge ANY faults in the man or his policies, even as they continue to mount and are becoming a giant white elephant in the proverbial room.

Exactly, plus when you are blindly partisan like that, you lose ALL credibility.....

revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
By the by, Leonhardt is hardly a neutral guy. He's an ardent supporter of "Obamonomics", hates Lou Dobbs, supports tax increases...in essence, he's hardly the guy who's going to be on the level in regards to Obama. It's no surprise that he's going to spread blame around to as many people not named Barrack Obama as possible.

SteelersinCA
06-10-2009, 01:36 PM
Countdown to fuzzy math comment on the 4 times last year's high for deficit. 10........9.........

Dino 6 Rings
06-10-2009, 01:42 PM
so what happens when you cut taxes again? Revenue goes up and jobs are created right?

atlsteelers
06-10-2009, 01:51 PM
By the by, Leonhardt is hardly a neutral guy. He's an ardent supporter of "Obamonomics", hates Lou Dobbs, supports tax increases...in essence, he's hardly the guy who's going to be on the level in regards to Obama. It's no surprise that he's going to spread blame around to as many people not named Barrack Obama as possible.

you not going to find anybody without a horse in the race. everybody has their angle. but i liked the article and it pointed to the fact that lots of the spending that obama is faced with are based on bush policies. a politician regardless of party affiliation is all about cutting spending until it invovles their distrcit.

bush gave us the tax breaks to satisfy his party base and spent like a dog on everything else.

revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Again, I contend that, sans war, Bush would have had a balanced budget or damned near close to a balanced budget.

Leonhardt is doing what a lot of journalists are doing. He's hedging for Obama, trying to help pull those sagging approval ratings up a tick. "Blame Bush" is old and tired and not nearly as applicable now that Obama has adopted so many Bush policies, but that certainly doesn't mean it's dead.

GBMelBlount
06-10-2009, 02:15 PM
Hopefully someone comes along to bless this thread with their oppinion so it may live on

Perhaps today is a national (government) holiday that doesn't apply to us :noidea:

I've lost track of them all, quite honestly. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
06-10-2009, 02:30 PM
Perhaps today is a national (government) holiday that doesn't apply to us :noidea:

I've lost track of them all, quite honestly. :chuckle:

Flag Day is Sunday the 14th. Perhaps they get like a 6 day holiday weekend around that date?

atlsteelers
06-10-2009, 04:48 PM
Again, I contend that, sans war, Bush would have had a balanced budget or damned near close to a balanced budget.

bush ran a deficit budget even after you exclude the wars, the wars were funded by as “emergency” or “supplemental” funding bills so that they were not included in the overall budget.

MACH1
06-10-2009, 07:13 PM
so what happens when you cut taxes again? Revenue goes up and jobs are created right?

Not in an obaaama world.

Spend trillions of dollars bailing out failing banks, car mfgs, making huge government and creating a czar for everything down to wiping your ass. Thats how you can save or create 3-4 million government jobs.

MACH1
06-10-2009, 07:27 PM
Countdown to fuzzy math comment on the 4 times last year's high for deficit. 10........9.........

http://politicalderby.com/wp-admin/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/miracle_occurs.jpg

tony hipchest
06-10-2009, 10:40 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/torchpanic.jpg

when tony hipchest or his reactions immediately become the main topic as opposed to the content of the OP.... :hatsoff:

thanks. :sofunny::applaudit: :sofunny:

you not going to find anybody without a horse in the race. everybody has their angle. .actually, any source revs cites or parrots as his own thoughts are totally unbiassed. :rolleyes:

Seems like every other week is another 'paid for doing nothing' day. like wow... that would be like 26 holidays atleast. is this like the same alternate universe where there are hundereds of laws that allow your employees to rob you blind. (still waiting for an accounting of these mysterious laws you speak of). :coffee:

anyways, you better watch out and not defer from the main point of the original topic or you may get chastised by revs. he may even downgrade you a letter.

bush ran a deficit budget even after you exclude the wars, the wars were funded by as “emergency” or “supplemental” funding bills so that they were not included in the overall budget.

good luck with this one. ive already pointed it out and it has expectedly gone ignored.

revefsreleets
06-11-2009, 08:40 AM
Panic? Sorry, it's called reality.

Instead of taxing then spending, we're just doing it backwards this time. Spending, then slowly but surely doing the taxing...

OK, so it's an emergency fund. Where the F do you think that money comes from, space aliens? It's still money the government spends (i.e. borrows). It still figures into long-term debt. Just because it isn't in the annual budget doesn't make it exempt from the deficit. It just shows up as a negative in the following years books. Money does not (contrary to popular belief of most Democrats and all liberals) grow on trees.

The war has cost us at least a trillion dollars. Perhaps more. What was Bush's deficit on his way out again?