Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

Don't take that road, you'll end up on Sad and Pathetic Road (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/) which is totally not a cool place for an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself. Time will tell but it seems to me your side doesn't know how to play (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usa_historical_debt_as_a_of_gdp_from_1929_w2_1.jpg ) at all at the moment. Until then, watch and learn.you know what would be interesting, is the same graph as your "doesnt know how to play" except shade it according to the House of Reps control. Seems to me like the Dems had a heavy hand with Reagan when he kept asking for a line item veto, and that the Republicans had control for a large part of Clintons Presidency.

But I forgot it is the PRESIDENT who initiates all spending bills under the Constitution [/sarcasm]

Class warfare usually works when the class being catered to (low-middle income) outnumbers the class being punished (the "evil" rich). Unfortunately while this wins elections, it puts the country further behind the eight-ball. Government spending on social programs and liberal pet-projects never stimulates the economy it only hurts and either extends a recession/depression or increases the debt for future generations.

Most of the folks making over $ 250K are either small business owners, doctors/lawyers, or business professionals. The effect of increasing taxes on them will cause an increase in the cost of their goods/services which will effect everyone, especially the low-middle income folks. A dinner out that used to be $ 40 that increases to $ 44, a home reapir that increases from $ 1,000 to $1,100, etc. hurts a family making $ 80K a lot more than a family making $ 180K.

Also the middle income folks who are saving in their 401Ks and IRAs own stock in the energy companies and other "evil" corporations. Increase taxes on these corporations and profits/dividends shrink, hurting everyone who owns the stock.

EDIT: More good news Estimated Budget Totals for 2008-2010 Show Government Public Debt Rise 63 Percent - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/raw-data-budget-totals/)

Can someone tell me why any of this is good policy?

Your using Fox as a source don't you know they are bias. You need to use good sources like PBR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, to get unbias reporting.

Don't take that road, you'll end up on Sad and Pathetic Road (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/drudge-dow-obama/) which is totally not a cool place for an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself. Time will tell but it seems to me your side doesn't know how to play (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usa_historical_debt_as_a_of_gdp_from_1929_w2_1.jpg ) at all at the moment. Until then, watch and learn.
My friend, you are much better than this. Should I link to the cross-over dribble on YouTube for you.:)

I'm by no means on the same road as Drudge. Nor am I unaware of the graph you linked to. We both know the President has limited control over the economy, but a President with his party controlling both houses of Congress can do much good....or harm. Many believe the expansion of the social programs FDR put forth in the 30s caused the depression to last longer. The expansion of these programs is draining the federal budget now. The expansion of government oversight / social programs in the mid-60s, many believe caused the economic issues in the 70s, and Carter certainly didn't help. It appears we are repeating past mistakes. I don't care who takes the credit, I'll happily give it to Obama if he does the things needed to get our federal budget balanced and our deficit reduced, but his current plan is not a blueprint for success.

EDIT: and for the record, Bush did a crappy job with the budget. He was definitely no fiscal conservative.

Your using Fox as a source don't you know they are bias. You need to use good sources like PBR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, to get unbias reporting.
What was I thinking, next thing you know I'll post a WSJ link :silly:

My friend, you are much better than this. Should I link to the cross-over dribble on YouTube for you.

I'm by no means on the same road as Drudge. Nor am I unaware of the graph you linked to. We both know the President has limited control over the economy, but a President with his party controlling both houses of Congress can do much good....or harm. Many believe the expansion of the social programs FDR put forth in the 30s caused the depression to last longer. The expansion of these programs is draining the federal budget now. The expansion of government oversight / social programs in the mid-60s, many believe caused the economic issues in the 70s, and Carter certainly didn't help. It appears we are repeating past mistakes. I don't care who takes the credit, I'll happily give it to Obama if he does the things needed to get our federal budget balanced and our deficit reduced, but his current plan is not a blueprint for success.

EDIT: and for the record, Bush did a crappy job with the budget. He was definitely no fiscal conservative.

I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, our population has increased (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt) 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.

Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.

I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.I wasn't referring to Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts, but I'm pretty sure they are included in the "many" :)
I was actually referring to folks like these:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx)

The truth about stimulus and the Depression - Feb. 11, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/yang_newdeal.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021106)

and also FDR's own Treasury Secretary Henry Mrogenthau, On May 9, 1939, with unemployment at 20%, speaking to the House Ways and Means Committee Congress, Morgenthau said "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong...somebody else can have my job. I want to see the country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promise....I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....and an enourmous debt to boot!"

from wiki article on Social Security:
Economic concerns
One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937) was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#cite_note-32)

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, our population has increased (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt) 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.
By expansion I mean; Expansion of Social Security benefits over the years, addition of Medicare under Johnson's "Great Society". These programs are not static and just grow due to population, additional beenfits have been added that have gotten us to this point:




from wiki: By 2017, the government is expected to have borrowed nearly $4.3 trillion against the Social Security Trust fund.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-socialsecurity.gov-3) By 2041, the Social Security Fund is expected to be officially exhausted, as payments in excess of receipts draw it down to zero.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-autogenerated1-4) There are certain key implications to understand under current law, if no reforms are implemented:

Payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2041. This declines to 75% by 2082.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-5) Without changes to the law, Social Security would have no legal authority to draw other government funds to cover the shortfall and payments would decline without a large tax increase.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#cite_note-kinsley2-1)
Between 2017 and 2041, redemption of the trust fund balance to pay retirees will draw $4.3 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion) in government funds from sources other than payroll taxes. This is a funding challenge for the government overall, not just Social Security.
The value of unfunded obligations under Social Security during FY 2007 was approximately $6.8 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.
from wiki: By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare/Medicaid.

In FDR's wildest dreams I'm sure he didn't envision the program spiraling so wildly out of control.

Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.Here's where we're about 80% in agreement (as it usually seems). We just take different paths to get there. The government should be spending on infrastructure, fixing roads, modernizing the electric grid, building/authorizing new nuclear plants, encouraging development in renewable/alternative fuels, encouraging oil/natural gas exploration and development within our own borders offshore, etc. Where the line needs to be drawn is on expanded/new social programs (prescription drug benefit was completely wrong, Universal Health Care, etc.) or enacting new government regulations (extreme environmental controls, Employee Free Choice Act). Change the benefit structure or full retirement age for SS, grandfather in those retiring within 10 yrs., but over that increase the full benefit retirment age. Stop the bailouts, let the automakers hit a Chapter 11 reorganization to deal with all the legacy costs and bloated union contracts that are killing them. Get the toxic mortgage assets under one roof and stop bailing out the banks too. The free market will sort itself out. Finally revamp the tax system, FairTax.org deserves a solid look. But there will need to be some sort of increases, either in the SS/Medicare contributions and in Fed Witholding, but those increases need to be going to programs mentioned above or directly against retiring the national debt, IMHO.

nuclear and private SS (no ind/gov borrowing against, 5%+ yearly ROI) would be huge cost savers

and i wouldn't be against a japanese type medicare system (where you have a small % to pay of your own bills to put the onus and cost control on the user for non preventive care, and then you could tag on a higher % if the condition was preventable - ie lung cancer due to smoking for someone born after date X to encourage users to decrease national medical spending individually - super simplified, but as a summary) as long as it was implemented correctly.

then there's tax and tort reform, farm subsidies (props for obama trying to open that, the dems are going to block it though).

we'll just have to see how it works out though.

I can't quantify "many believe" into facts and figures. I am afraid you'll have to do better than "many believe," specially if that many include Buster, firstdown, and the usual cohorts.

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, our population has increased (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt) 400% since 1900 and 225% since 1940. The fact that national debt relative to the GDP was heading south aught to tell you we were heading in the right direction. The only time we seem to have issues is when we go to war and put all that money on the credit card.

Government spending during an economic downturn is a good thing but only if the money is spent wisely. Sure, there's plenty of government mismanagement that goes on but to use this to justify cutting back government spending and programs right now absurd. I want us to reign in the fraud/waste/abuses unlike many I can't subscribe to "look -- right there, it's bad, get rid of it" philosophy. You have to have a good alternative and I'm not convinced a spending freeze would be a good thing right now. That goes for a tax increase before the economy recovers too.
So if you feel paying higher taxes is a good thing do you send your refund back each year or is it only a good thing for other people?

Don't be stupid, just because I don't mind paying taxes it doesn't mean I am willing to pay more than my fair share.

Jim Calhoun keeping it real:
xokthY5zuPU

Don't be stupid, just because I don't mind paying taxes it doesn't mean I am willing to pay more than my fair share.

Jim Calhoun keeping it real:
xokthY5zuPU
So the people making over $250,000 which pay most of the federal taxes already don't pay their fair share?