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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

The truth about stimulus and the Depression - Feb. 11, 2009

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 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]

When you say expansion what do you mean? We're not a static nation, our population has increased 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] By 2041, the Social Security Fund is expected to be officially exhausted, as payments in excess of receipts draw it down to zero.[5] 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] 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]
• Between 2017 and 2041, redemption of the trust fund balance to pay retirees will draw $4.3 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.

[That Guy]

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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 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?

[saden1]

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:

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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:

So the people making over $250,000 which pay most of the federal taxes already don't pay their fair share?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So the people making over $250,000 which pay most of the federal taxes already don't pay their fair share?

Don't confuse two things...I pay my taxes, I'm not giving back money I am owed by the government. Period. If the government wants to raise my taxes that's a different story and if they do I won't whine about it though it may factor into how I vote if I find it excessive.

As for whether those making 250K are paying their fair share, I'm not going down that road...we beat that horse to death.

[724Skinsfan]

Figured I would just piggyback off of this one since it's budget (Veterans Affairs) related. I would totally be upset if this suggestion was given any consideration...

Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries.