Obama's Turn

[WaterMan]

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

 

You and him shouldn't need a link when something about the CBO is posted. I'm sure either of you could find a CBO quote in 30 seconds.

[bushwacked]

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

From Table 1 under the column of 2022 in the CBO letter to Ryan.

 

And you yourself quoted the 70% number in your last post, so the debt is projected to get worse in the next 10 years if the GOP bill passes, and from 2022 on the projections are a crap shoot based on how we deal with Medicare costs.

 

 

Under the proposal analyzed here, debt would eventually shrink relative to the size of

the economy—but the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their

health care costs than they would under the current program; payments to physicians

and other providers for services provided under the traditional Medicare program

would be restrained (as under the two scenarios); states would have to pay substantially more for their Medicaid programs or tightly constrain spending for those programs; and spending for federal programs other than Social Security and the major

health care programs would be reduced far below historical levels relative to GDP. It is

unclear whether and how future lawmakers would address the pressures resulting from

the long-term scenarios or the proposal analyzed here.

Edited April 13, 2011 by bushwacked

[muck]

What would you say if Congress ends up putting forward something like this:

 

1) Do something like what the Republicans wants w/ Medicare and Medicaid. Leaving the % of the budget spent on entitlements is simply not going to work, if we want to remain solvent.

 

2) Do what the Republicans want w/ tax rates and loop-holes (reduce & reduce) ---- EXCEPT ---- have two additional 'really high income' threshholds (say, 30% for income between $300,000 and $1 million ... and ... 35% for income above $1 million).

 

3) Cap the size of all financial institutions at having total assets of less than ____% of GDP. Anything above that level automatically falls under the umbrella of "Monopoly" and should be split up (see, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, BofA, etc.) until the balance sheet is smaller. Further, socialize the losses on FNM and FRE so that the US Government eats 50% (instead of the 100% we're currently on the hook for) and the bank holding companies eat the other 50%, where the exact amount they eat is based on their % of total assets in the banking system (so, if a BHC is 2% of the total assets in the banking system, then they eat 1% of the losses on FNM/FRE).

[SEC=UGA]

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.

 

But think about what all of those cuts in the military budget will do to the economic recovery... It will cause bedlam, all the newly unemployed will cause the economy to lurch and fall off of a cliff.

 

But, seriously. The problem has been encapsulated here in these posts. We need tax reform, not just increases in rates, but true tax reform. We need to cut the military budget, drop at least 10 to 20 per cent out of it. We need to reform and cut entitlement programs, social security, medicare, etc... (something dems refuse to do.) We need to cut subsidies to agriculture, petro, and other special interest business groups. We need to decrease the corporate tax rate. We need to restructure the manner in which government outlines budgets, a carte blanche 5% (or whatever it is) annual budget increase for each department is not necessary. We need to eliminate pork/earmarks and keep them from attaching this crap as riders on other spending bills (cut discretionary spending.)

 

These are all things that Obama's economic panel have recommended, but he does not heed their recommendations as it could undermine the support he receives from his lobbyists. Yes, the Republicans are playing the same game. Neither side is serious about passing budget reductions or about trying to increase revenues (class warfare in who taxes will be raised on by the dems is a prime example, only those who make 200/250K.) Both sides stink to high heaven and are only trying to maintain their cushy little government jobs.

[bpwallace49]

What would you say if Congress ends up putting forward something like this:

 

1) Do something like what the Republicans wants w/ Medicare and Medicaid. Leaving the % of the budget spent on entitlements is simply not going to work, if we want to remain solvent.

 

2) Do what the Republicans want w/ tax rates and loop-holes (reduce & reduce) ---- EXCEPT ---- have two additional 'really high income' threshholds (say, 30% for income between $300,000 and $1 million ... and ... 35% for income above $1 million).

 

3) Cap the size of all financial institutions at having total assets of less than ____% of GDP. Anything above that level automatically falls under the umbrella of "Monopoly" and should be split up (see, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, BofA, etc.) until the balance sheet is smaller. Further, socialize the losses on FNM and FRE so that the US Government eats 50% (instead of the 100% we're currently on the hook for) and the bank holding companies eat the other 50%, where the exact amount they eat is based on their % of total assets in the banking system (so, if a BHC is 2% of the total assets in the banking system, then they eat 1% of the losses on FNM/FRE).

 

I would say vote for Muck in 2012.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

How about a national sales tax of 1%. What would that raise in revenue?

[SEC=UGA]

I would say vote for Muck in 2012.

 

Man... I was hoping for your endorsement...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Somebody who has been following the numbers closer explain something to me. I see Obama and the GOP are both throwing out numbers of 4-6 trillion in savings over 10-12 years. I assume this is in total. We're running about a 1.5 trillion yearly deficit now correct? So even with those savings we would still be running around 1 trillion in new debt every year, correct?

[SEC=UGA]

How about a national sales tax of 1%. What would that raise in revenue?

 

As best I can tell from looking at total sales of goods within the US, including food, clothing, autos, heavy equipment, paper, etc... $17.49.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Man... I was hoping for your endorsement...

 

Mystery Huddler killed your chances. The country just isn't ready for the gheys in the White House.

[Azazello1313]

From Table 1 under the column of 2022 in the CBO letter to Ryan.

 

that's not where you pulled the quote from. you pulled it from the aptly named talking points memo

 

on the other hand, you have the bipartisan co-chairs of the fiscal commission.

 

hmm, who to believe...the "talking points memo" blog, or the chairs of the president's fiscal commission.

[SEC=UGA]

Mystery Huddler killed your chances. The country just isn't ready for the gheys in the White House.

 

God, you suck a couple cocks in college... who knew.

[Azazello1313]

2) Do what the Republicans want w/ tax rates and loop-holes (reduce & reduce) ---- EXCEPT ---- have two additional 'really high income' threshholds (say, 30% for income between $300,000 and $1 million ... and ... 35% for income above $1 million).

 

or just go with the bowles-simpson plan. does the same thing as ryan's plan, just sets the rates a little bit higher, getting revenue to 21% of GDP, whereas ryan aims to keep revenue where it has been historically, namely under 20% of GDP.

[bushwacked]

hmm, who to believe...the "talking points memo" blog, or the chairs of the president's fiscal commission.

 

You should really stop embarrassing yerself here. You are doing a woefully inadequate job of pretending to be an expert.

 

True or false, the CBO is projecting a debt increase under Paul's plan until 2022 compared to the current law in place? True.

 

True or false, the CBO has little confidence in debt projections under Paul's plan after 2022 because the plan is to simply shift a substantial costs of Medicare onto consumers? True.

 

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

[Ursa Majoris]

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.

Since you're evidently in mug mode, I should tell you about this really nice area of land I have in Florida, going dead cheap..........

[Azazello1313]

CBO analysis of President Obama's Budget

 

debt projected to be 90% of GDP in 2020, compared with the CBO baseline of 67.5%. oops, makes that supposed increase to 70% under Ryan's budget look a little better, doesn't it?

 

the "current law" baseline is a phony number, for all sorts of reasons. it assumes expiration of all kinds of tax increases, no AMT fix, no medicare "doc fix", etc. which is why CBO created the "alternate fiscal scenario" (spelled out in more detail here):

The first long-term budget scenario used in this analysis, the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. It incorporates CBO's current estimate of the impact of the recently enacted health care legislation on revenues and mandatory spending. (That estimate is unchanged from the one that CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation published in March, when the legislation was being considered.) Under this scenario, the expiration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates. Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035--much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades--and to larger percentages thereafter.

...

The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. In this scenario, CBO assumed that Medicare's payment rates for physicians would gradually increase (which would not happen under current law) and that several policies enacted in the recent health care legislation that would restrain growth in health care spending would not continue in effect after 2020. In addition, under the alternative scenario, spending on activities other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest would fall below the average level of the past 40 years relative to GDP, though not as low as under the extended-baseline scenario. More important, CBO assumed for this scenario that most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended, that the reach of the alternative minimum tax would be kept close to its historical extent, and that over the longer run, tax law would evolve further so that revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical average.

 

Under that combination of policy assumptions, federal debt would grow much more rapidly than under the extended-baseline scenario. With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects.

 

publicly held debt reaches 95% of GDP in 2022 under the more realistic alternative fiscal scenario, making Ryan's 70% look pretty good.

 

so, to sum up, debt to GDP in 2022:

- 67.5% under the phony number that has taxes skyrocket to 23.5% of GDP and assumed medicare reimbursment rates will remain unchanged

- 95% under CBO's more realistic projection of "current law"

- 90+% under Obama's proposed budget

- 70% under ryan's budget

[Azazello1313]

Since you're evidently in mug mode, I should tell you about this really nice area of land I have in Florida, going dead cheap..........

 

it's pretty simple. they limit or eliminate all deductions and tax credits except the EITC and child credit, then they lower tax rates. replace the mortgage interest deduction with a lower, refundable credit. same with the health benefits tax shelter. lower limits on the tax shelter for retirement contributions. all in all, a WHOLE lot more income ends up being exposed to taxation, which occurs at a lower rate. many economists have been chanting "broaden the base, lower the rates" for decades in commenting on our stupid tax code. it's anything BUT some sort of pipe dream.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

CBO analysis of President Obama's Budget

 

debt projected to be 90% of GDP in 2020, compared with the CBO baseline of 67.5%. oops, makes that supposed increase to 70% under Ryan's budget look a little better, doesn't it?

 

the "current law" baseline is a phony number, for all sorts of reasons. it assumes expiration of all kinds of tax increases, no AMT fix, no medicare "doc fix", etc. which is why CBO created the "alternate fiscal scenario" (spelled out in more detail here):

 

 

publicly held debt reaches 95% of GDP in 2022 under the more realistic alternative fiscal scenario, making Ryan's 70% look pretty good.

 

so, to sum up, debt to GDP in 2022:

- 67.5% under the phony number that has taxes skyrocket to 23.5% of GDP and assumed medicare reimbursment rates will remain unchanged

- 95% under CBO's more realistic projection of "current law"

- 90+% under Obama's proposed budget

- 70% under ryan's budget

 

To clarify, we're talking apples and oranges here as you are comparing Obama's budget proposal as scored in March 2010 to a current proposal from Ryan. Nothing has been scored on Obama's current proposals (as nothing is written in detail as far as I know.)

[SEC=UGA]

CBS/AP) Updated 3:30 p.m. ET

 

 

WASHINGTON - Forcefully rejecting Republican budget cutting plans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed lowering the nation's future deficits by $4 trillion over a dozen years with a package that includes reducing spending on politically sensitive health care programs and raising taxes on high-earning Americans.

 

 

The president recommended trimming the growth of Medicare spending, cuts in defense, an overhaul of the tax system to eliminate many loopholes enjoyed by individuals and corporations, and an end to Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans.

 

 

"We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt," Obama said in a combative speech at George Washington University.

 

 

As much a policy speech as it was a political address, Obama laid the blame for the rising debt on the spending increases and tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush and the recession that struck in late 2007. "We lost our way," he said.

 

 

Ensuring that the nation's fiscal troubles will be at the center of the 2012 presidential election, Obama drew sharp contrasts with a Republican plan that cuts about $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade and which the White House says unfairly singles out middle-class taxpayers, older adults and the poor. He pointedly noted that the GOP plan has already been embraced by some Republican presidential candidates.

 

 

Such cuts, he said, "paint a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic."

 

 

"Their vision," he added, "is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America."

 

 

Obama previewed his proposals to congressional leaders Wednesday morning. And even before he delivered his speech, top Republicans were pushing back.

 

 

"If we're going to resolve our differences and do something meaningful, raising taxes will not be part of that," House Speaker John Boehner declared shortly after his White House meeting.

 

 

"Most people understand that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said on CBS' "The Early Show" Wednesday. "We can't raise taxes. That was settled last November during the elections."

 

This new clash comes just a week after the president announced he would seek re-election. For the past two months, Obama has been arguing for protection of his core spending priorities, including education and innovation. His turn to deficit reduction reflects the pressures he faces in a divided Congress and with a public increasingly anxious about the nation's debt, now exceeding $14 trillion.

 

 

"Any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget," the president said.

 

 

To help enforce budget discipline, the president called for resurrecting a spending cap that would be triggered if the nation's debt did not stabilize and begin to decline by 2014. The cap would not apply to Social Security, low-income programs or Medicare benefits.

 

 

The president's plan, outlined in a seven-page White House fact sheet, draws many of its ideas from the December recommendations of Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission, which proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. As in the commission's plan, three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases. One quarter, or $1 trillion, would come from additional tax revenue. (at left, Obama discusses taxes)

 

 

For the White House, the speech comes as Obama pushes Congress to raise the limit on the national debt, which will permit the government to borrow more and thus meet its financial obligations. The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. The Treasury Department has warned that failure to raise the limit by midsummer would drive up the cost of borrowing and destroy the economic recovery.

 

 

In laying out his plan, the president is wading into a potential political thicket. Liberals are loath to making cuts in prized Democratic programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and in Social Security. Moderates worry that his plan could unravel bipartisan deficit-cutting negotiations. And Republicans reject any proposal that includes tax increases.

 

 

The proposal calls for cutting $770 billion from non-defense domestic spending by 2023. That figure does not include spending on major benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The plan also would reduce defense spending by $400 billion during the same 12 years.

 

 

Obama envisions spending cuts in Medicare and Medicaid of $480 billion through 2023. Those are in addition to the $500 billion in reductions over 10 years from projected increases in Medicare spending contained in the health care law Congress passed and Obama signed last year.

 

 

The president's planned health care reductions include vague proposals to lower Medicaid costs and reduce Medicare prescription drug expenses.

 

 

While the White House concedes that Social Security is facing pressure from an aging population, Obama did not specify any changes to the national retirement system other than calling for bipartisan efforts to "strengthen the program."

 

And therein rests the problem.

Edited April 13, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Azazello1313]

To clarify, we're talking apples and oranges here as you are comparing Obama's budget proposal as scored in March 2010 to a current proposal from Ryan. Nothing has been scored on Obama's current proposals (as nothing is written in detail as far as I know.)

 

you're right, that was from last year. here is the report on obama's current proposed budget, from last month...which shows publicly held debt at 87.4% of GDP in 2021 under the president's proposal.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

it's pretty simple. they limit or eliminate all deductions and tax credits except the EITC and child credit, then they lower tax rates. replace the mortgage interest deduction with a lower, refundable credit. same with the health benefits tax shelter. lower limits on the tax shelter for retirement contributions. all in all, a WHOLE lot more income ends up being exposed to taxation, which occurs at a lower rate. many economists have been chanting "broaden the base, lower the rates" for decades in commenting on our stupid tax code. it's anything BUT some sort of pipe dream.

Those same economists have also been saying the only way out of the hole is cut spending AND raise taxes.

 

I like the idea of zero deductions and zero credits, personally, and stepped rates set according to that. Eventually there ought to be a day when April 15th is just another day in the calendar and of no significance to most people.

[Azazello1313]

Those same economists have also been saying the only way out of the hole is cut spending AND raise taxes.

 

don't you think restructuring the tax code in a way that increases revenue (the bowles-simpson plan aims for 21% of GDP) counts as raising taxes?

 

here's some more on the bowles-simpson/ryan tax plan

[bpwallace49]

To me it has to be a combination of increasing taxes AND cutting spending. There really isnt any other way around it.

 

Obama= 87% of publically held debt to GDP

Ryan= 70% of publically held debt to GDP

 

Both= suck for long term prospects.

 

I wonder what Ryan's plan would look like WITH Muck's idea of

 

Do what the Republicans want w/ tax rates and loop-holes (reduce & reduce) ---- EXCEPT ---- have two additional 'really high income' threshholds (say, 30% for income between $300,000 and $1 million ... and ... 35% for income above $1 million).

 

Included? Then we could actually reduce that number even further from the 70% number, right?

 

But of course . . that just wont do with the Republican base, so it will never happen.

[Azazello1313]

To me it has to be a combination of increasing taxes AND cutting spending. There really isnt any other way around it.

 

Obama= 87% of publically held debt to GDP

Ryan= 70% of publically held debt to GDP

 

Both= suck for long term prospects.

 

maybe you should read the whole thing, rather than just the snipped out part bushwanked borrowed from talkingpointsmemo.

 

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

300 percent in 2050. Under (Ryan's) 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.

 

so the projection based on current fiscal policy is 90% in 2022, and 300% in 2050. under Ryan's plan, it's 70% in 2022, and 10% in 2050.

 

I think you guys are better off with the "killing seniors" schtick than trying to argue that Ryan's plan doesn't reduce the debt/deficit.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

you're right, that was from last year. here is the report on obama's current proposed budget, from last month...which shows publicly held debt at 87.4% of GDP in 2021 under the president's proposal.

 

OK, but still apples and oranges if you're trying to compare Ryan's plan to Obama's latest ideas.