Obama's Turn

[Azazello1313]

So the school wasn't secure... Sorry, I missed the clock in the background. So the two videos I watched, obviously shot on different cameras, that run 5:09 are both wrong, got it.

 

poopflick's sources are unimpeachable troofer conspiracy films, backed up by michael moore.

 

ZMOG! my pet goat!!

[Perchoutofwater]

That's true. And it's true that there are going to have to be some fundamental changes in the way the big entitlements work but no-one is going to slash SS and Medicare benefits next week.

 

You say this, and talk going after lose change in the couch, yet when the GOP offers up real spending cuts a month or so ago you and several others were all over them for not addressing the two items you admit can't be changed over night.

[WaterMan]

Maybe he should read a book to some school kids.

 

Now that's not fair. Bush's cell phone wasn't getting service at that school so Cheney couldn't call him right at that moment to tell him what to do.

[Ursa Majoris]

You say this, and talk going after lose change in the couch, yet when the GOP offers up real spending cuts a month or so ago you and several others were all over them for not addressing the two items you admit can't be changed over night.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. They can be addressed overnight but won't be is what I was saying. The loose change comment was made in support of the retrieval of unspent money hanging out in various budgets from this year.

[Pope Flick]

poopflick's sources are unimpeachable troofer conspiracy films, backed up by michael moore.

 

ZMOG! my pet goat!!

 

 

Actually freerepublic had the timing down.

 

And yeah, you got me: Moore edited the part out where, when 747s were being used as missiles, the anti aircraft batteries around the school got set up and operational during that 7-8 minutes of reading. My bad.

[bpwallace49]

Obama first to put tax increases on budget table

 

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 38 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Higher taxes have been missing from the fierce budget battle that nearly shut down the federal government. But President Barack Obama is about to put them on the table — at least a modest version that he had pushed before and then rested on the shelf.

 

Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan. Yet few players in the negotiations have gone there.

 

It comes in the scramble to heed what is widely viewed as a loud clamor from voters to slam the brakes on runaway government spending. There has been no corresponding public demand for raising taxes. That's not surprising, but the top-bracket U.S. tax rate now is the lowest it's been in decades, and it's far lower than those in many other industrialized countries, especially in western Europe.

 

Tax elements of Obama's broad deficit-reduction plan, to be laid out in a speech Wednesday, seem likely to revive his earlier proposals.

 

The president is expected to bring back his recommendation, first made in the 2008 campaign, to end Bush-era tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 a year. He temporarily set it aside when he signed onto a late 2010 agreement with Republicans to extend all Bush tax cuts for two years.

 

However, he did renew the bid earlier this year in his budget for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

 

Any comprehensive deficit-reduction plan must include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, experts argue from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

"There's no alternative, and I don't know of anybody who has seriously looked at this problem who thinks there is," said William A. Galston, a White House domestic policy adviser during the Clinton administration. "You're going to need to put together tough packages of programmatic cuts and revenue increases."

 

Still, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, denounced Obama's tactics ahead of the president's speech. "Tax increases are unacceptable and are a nonstarter," Boehner said Tuesday in a statement. "We don't have deficits because Americans are taxed too little, we have deficits because Washington spends too much."

 

Boehner's shot across the bow underscored the difficult road Obama has ahead of him in pushing any tax increases, even ones limited to the wealthiest Americans.

 

With a presidential election just around the corner and voters demanding cuts in government spending, few politicians seem eager to climb out on a higher-taxes limb.

 

Even Obama's bid to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — bitterly fought by Republicans — would just take tax rates on them back to where they were in the 1990s, a decade of strong economic growth.

 

A sweeping Republican proposal laid down by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes trimming more than $5 trillion from deficits over the next decade, but it does so almost exclusively on the spending side of the ledger, including a drastic reshaping of Medicare and other federal safety-net entitlement programs.

 

The Ryan plan doesn't only fail to propose major new tax increases, it advocates lowering the top tax rates for both corporations and individuals to 25 percent from the current 35 percent.

 

This comes amid disclosures of low tax payments by some of the nation's biggest companies, including General Electric Co., which made $14.2 billion in worldwide profits last year, but paid no U.S. corporate taxes in 2010.

 

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the plan Obama will outline on Wednesday at George Washington University would contain both spending cuts and tax increases. "The president believes there has to be a balanced approach," Carney said. He declined to elaborate.

 

Carney said that the GOP plan drafted by Ryan is unbalanced "through it's rather drastic reform of Medicare and Medicaid...That's not the approach the president believes is the right way to go...The burden has to be shared by everybody."

 

Meanwhile, the budget deal negotiated by the White House and Congress to avert a government showdown — scheduled to be voted on Thursday — was drawing criticism from some conservative Republicans. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who chairs the influential Republican Study Committee, said he'll be among those voting no. "Americans want us to reach higher, act bolder and remember the job we were sent here to do," Jordan said.

 

Heavy pressure from the tea party wing of the Republican Party, with its insistence on smaller government and strong opposition to new taxes, has complicated efforts by Republican leaders, especially Boehner, to find common ground with the White House.

 

Democrats aren't exactly crying out for raising taxes now either. Not with approaching national elections and a restive electorate unhappy with levels of federal spending.

 

Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for families making over $250,000 or individuals earning above $200,000 will be woven into the upcoming presidential election. In emphasizing it now, rather than later, Obama all but assured that outcome.

 

Obama also is expected to call for other changes in the tax code, which he contends benefits the rich.

 

"Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here," senior White House adviser David Plouffe says. "Revenues are going to have to be part of this." "Revenues" has always been Washington code for more taxes.

 

The bipartisan deficit-reduction commission appointed by Obama, led by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, called late last year for slashing about $4 trillion from budget deficits over the coming decade.

 

Roughly two-thirds of that would come through program cuts and one-third through increased taxes. Although overall tax rates would decline, dozens of popular tax breaks would be scaled back or eliminated, including the child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction and deduction claimed by employers who provide health insurance.

 

Obama praised the panel for its work but embraced few of its recommendations and none of the major ones on new taxes.

 

About the same time, another bipartisan panel headed by Republican Pete V. Domenici and Democrat Alice Rivlin came out with its own plan that would go even further — getting roughly half of its deficit reductions from tax increases and half from spending cuts.

 

Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve vice chairwoman and budget director in the Clinton administration, says there's no other way than a mix. "It cannot be all on the spending side," she said.

 

Panels recommending tax increases haven't fared very well. When then President George W. Bush's tax-code overhaul commission, chaired by former GOP Sen. Connie Mack of Florida, recommended big cuts in the cherished home mortgage deduction and other popular tax breaks in 2005, Bush gave it a cold shoulder.

 

Ever since Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale famously said in 1984 that, if elected, he would reluctantly raise taxes — and promptly got clobbered in President Ronald Reagan's re-election landslide — advocating tax increases has been dangerous territory for politicians of all stripes.

 

Reagan's "supply side" economics, the notion that tax cuts can pay for themselves and that lower taxes mean higher revenues, remains Republican gospel. No matter that few mainstream economists totally subscribe to that theory, or that Reagan proposed tax increases in every one of his eight years in office except the first.

 

"It's gotten much worse since then," suggests Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush. Bartlett cited the growing influence of unrelenting anti-tax advocates like Americans for Tax Reform and some within the tea party movement.

 

Bartlett said he's "enough of a libertarian" to wish that the nation's budget woes could indeed be solved by spending cuts alone. "But I just don't see how that's humanly possible, giving the aging of our society, the wars we're involved in and various other things."

 

This year's budget deficit is expected to be a record $1.6 trillion. But that's just for one year. Added to previous years' deficits, it brings the national debt to a shade under $14.3 trillion. Annual deficits are expected to decline as the economy recovers from the worst downturn since the 1930s, but then climb again as millions of baby boomers qualify for government Social Security and Medicare benefits

 

 

[bushwacked]

Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan. Yet few players in the negotiations have gone there.

 

Henceforth the Repubs will be diametrically opposed to any kind of viable deficit-reduction plan.

[Deathpig]

Henceforth the Repubs will be diametrically opposed to any kind of viable deficit-reduction plan.

 

It takes two to tango. Wake me up when Democrats propose the required significant cuts to entitlement spending. Not much else matters until those are dealt with, as you could raise taxes to absurd levels and cut all non-entitlement spending forever and we're still screwed.

 

I'm glad Obama seems to care, but it's hard not to write this off as 'Obama 2012' narrative. After the Dems got shellacked in the midterms, he's embracing the message that independents resonated with. I look forward to him proposing something concrete (read: can be criticized on its merits) as opposed to 'I'm for cutting spending, now Congress get on that' (read: I said the right things in front of the camera for independents, but am not tied to the solution, so I can take credit if it goes well or veto it to appease my base).

 

I'm hoping it's better than spending 1.5+ billion to 'save' 500 million.

[WaterMan]

I can't wait for Obama to lay the hammer down today.

[SEC=UGA]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For years, President Obama has been clear about his preferred tax policy: Tax the rich more and protect households that make less than $250,000 from higher taxes.

 

It's not clear what he'll say about taxes on Wednesday when he lays out his ideas for how to tackle the country's long-term debt. If history holds, he'll stick to his guns.

 

Certainly, continuing to promise low taxes for 98% of the country will help his newly launched 2012 re-election campaign. But it wouldn't be a great path to reining in debt. (Sorry GOP: Tax revenue has to go up)

 

Relying solely on tax increases for the rich to aid in deficit reduction -- even when paired with significant spending cuts -- doesn't cut it for two reasons, said Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams.

 

First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers.

 

Second, even if that weren't true, there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits.

 

To show the disparity, consider some recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years. By contrast, raising the top two rates by 1 percentage point would yield just $115 billion.

 

What Obama has said: In his most recent budget request, the president proposed letting the top two income tax rates revert to 39.6% and 36%, up from 35% and 33% today. He also called for an increase in the capital gains and dividend rates to 20% that high-income households pay, up from 15% today. And he would reduce the value of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions.

 

All told, those proposals -- which would affect individuals making at least $200,000 and couples making $250,000 and up -- would reduce deficits by just under $1 trillion over 10 years.

 

That's only about a third of the deficit reduction that would occur if lawmakers just let all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

 

And it's just a tenth of the $1.1 trillion a year that could be saved if the tax code were stripped of the byzantine mess of tax breaks, many of which disproportionately benefit the rich but also benefit those lower down the income scale.

 

Of course, if one wants more revenue from the $250,000-plus set, why not just raise rates and constrain tax breaks even more than the president has proposed so far?

 

"You'd have to raise rates an awful lot on the wealthy," Williams said. And by that he meant to heights that would be neither politically nor possibly even economically feasible.

 

The higher tax rates are, the more likely they are to affect economic behavior by increasing tax avoidance and discouraging otherwise growth-spurring investments. And that, in turn, can reduce the revenue raised.

 

Tax reform in order: That's why Williams and other tax experts hope that the president will take a cue from his own bipartisan debt commission, which recommended comprehensive tax reform.

 

The commission report laid a few paths to tax reform. One -- called the "Zero Plan" -- would eliminate all tax breaks. Doing so would raise more than $1 trillion a year, the bulk of which would be used to pay for a steep reduction in individual and corporate rates.

 

Under that scenario, the commission would reduce the number of tax brackets for individuals from six to three and set income tax rates at 8%, 14% and at 23% -- a 12 percentage point drop from today's top rate.

 

The commission then offered two other, less extreme versions of the Zero Plan -- each of which adds back some tax breaks. In one case, they restore the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, both of which benefit lower income households. Under that scenario, income tax rates would be 9%, 15% and 24%.

 

When they add back still more -- this time including limited versions of popular tax breaks on mortgage interest, health insurance, retirement savings and charitable giving -- the rates would still be lower than they are today, but notably higher (12%, 22% and 28%) than under the most extreme Zero Plan.

 

In all cases, Williams said, the commission offered up the kind of fundamental tax reform that "can generate a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax code and still bring in more money."

[Azazello1313]

Henceforth the Repubs will be diametrically opposed to any kind of viable deficit-reduction plan.

 

you mean except for the ones they've already signed on for?

 

by the way, while I do personally think that whatever we do going forward ought to do better than be revenue-neutral, it's not at all true that we HAVE to raise taxes. we just have to get government spending back where it's been historically, under 20% of GDP, which is not such a drastic proposal at all.

[bushwacked]

you mean except for the ones they've already signed on for?

 

They've signed on for tax increases?

 

 

Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan......Still, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, denounced Obama's tactics ahead of the president's speech. "Tax increases are unacceptable and are a nonstarter,"

 

How much simpler does it get? Repubs aren't interested in a viable deficit-reduction plan, it's a nonstarter. Not even open to rolling back tax rates to the pre George W era. Pathetic.

[Pope Flick]

They've signed on for tax increases?

 

 

 

 

How much simpler does it get? Repubs aren't interested in a viable deficit-reduction plan, it's a nonstarter. Not even open to rolling back tax rates to the pre George W era. Continuing to say 'no' to anything Obama proposes. Pathetic.

[Yukon Cornelius]

How much simpler does it get? Repubs aren't interested in a viable deficit-reduction plan, it's a nonstarter. Not even open to rolling back tax rates to the pre George W era. Pathetic.

yup

[TimC]

We could just tell the Chinese to suck it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

We could just tell the Chinese to suck it.

where will all the tea bagers purchase there American flags after wally world closes?

[SEC=UGA]

They've signed on for tax increases?

 

 

 

 

How much simpler does it get? Repubs aren't interested in a viable deficit-reduction plan, it's a nonstarter. Not even open to rolling back tax rates to the pre George W era. Pathetic.

 

Actually, in the article I posted the Repubs have a good chance to capitalize. Push the tax plan by the bi-partisan commission, tell people you are lowering taxes to those levels and move forward. YOu don't "raise" taxes, you increase revenue to the fed. gov. and then you start slashing the budget like democrats do to the tires on republican get out the vote buses.

[Azazello1313]

Actually, in the article I posted the Repubs have a good chance to capitalize. Push the tax plan by the bi-partisan commission, tell people you are lowering taxes to those levels and move forward. YOu don't "raise" taxes, you increase revenue to the fed. gov. and then you start slashing the budget like democrats do to the tires on republican get out the vote buses.

 

exactly. that plan (which republicans like a lot better than democrats when it came out) lowered tax rates, but increased revenue by broadening the base and eliminating deductions.

 

it's pretty amusing to hear our resident democrat shills talking about how republicans won't support real deficit reduction. what exactly is the democrat plan again? raising taxes on the rich gets you a few hundred billion over the next decade. that only leaves you about $6 trillion short

[bushwacked]

it's pretty amusing to hear our resident democrat shills talking about how republicans won't support real deficit reduction.

 

Fail.

 

Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan.

 

Az deflecting and insulting to do nothing more than defend the party line. How unexpected

Edited April 13, 2011 by bushwacked

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Obama on tax cuts for wealthy, "I refuse to renew them again."

[bushwacked]

The CBO projects that Paul's plan increases debt from 67 to 70% of the GDP until 2022, because the GOP spending cuts would be outpaced by debt increasing tax cuts. After that debt projection vary based on current law. The 2022 law mainly, which shifts Medicare burden health costs to the consumer.

 

Viable deficit reduction plan!

Edited April 13, 2011 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

Obama on tax cuts for wealthy, "I refuse to renew them again."

 

If he sticks to his guns on this and proposes meaningful spending cuts in military, I'd probably be more than happy with that as a start. I assume he will also be willing to negotiate some spending cuts on significantly less costly social programs as a compromise with the GOP.

[Azazello1313]

The CBO projects that Paul's plan increases debt from 67 to 70% of the GDP until 2022, because the GOP spending cuts would be outpaced by debt increasing tax cuts. After that debt projection vary based on current law. The 2022 law mainly, which shifts Medicare burden health costs to the consumer.

 

Viable deficit reduction plan!

 

and where did you pull this quote from, pray tell?

 

here's the actual CBO letter

 

Those reductions, combined with no proposed changes to Social Security and with the path

of revenues specified by the Chairman’s staff, would result in much lower deficits and

debt in the long run than the amounts in CBO’s scenarios. Under the proposal, the

federal budget would show a deficit of about 2 percent of GDP in 2022, a slight surplus

in 2040, and a surplus of about 4 percent of GDP in 2050. The ratio of debt to

GDP would fall sharply—from about 70 percent of GDP in 2022 to about 10 percent

in 2050.

...

Under the extended-baseline scenario, debt held by the public is projected to rise from

about 62 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 90 percent of GDP in 2050.13 Under the

alternative fiscal scenario, the ratio of debt to GDP is projected to rise to more than

300 percent in 2050 (see Table 1 on page 3). Under the proposal, the ratio of debt to

GDP would be significantly smaller over the long term—falling to 48 percent in 2040

and 10 percent in 2050.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Azazello1313

[WaterMan]

So why are the Republicans defending the rich tax cuts? Could it because this would be messing with their best friends outside of work?

 

It would be hard to be left out in the cold while their buddies host wine parties.

[bpwallace49]

exactly. that plan (which republicans like a lot better than democrats when it came out) lowered tax rates, but increased revenue by broadening the base and eliminating deductions.

 

it's pretty amusing to hear our resident democrat shills talking about how republicans won't support real deficit reduction.

 

 

The CBO projects that Paul's plan increases debt from 67 to 70% of the GDP until 2022, because the GOP spending cuts would be outpaced by debt increasing tax cuts. After that debt projection vary based on current law. The 2022 law mainly, which shifts Medicare burden health costs to the consumer.

 

Viable deficit reduction plan!

 

Any response Az? I look forward to hearing how Ryan's plan justifies an increase in debt . . .