Originally posted by sh76Are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security the only non-discretionary budget items? Or were they chosen to get the desired reaction of -- "Oh No! Not those!" :'(
Most federal spending is non-discretionary. Unless you want to take an axe to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, you cannot close the budget deficits on spending cuts alone; not in the short term anyway.
Originally posted by sh76Well, it would show a start. About 500 dollars per worker?
Don't remember; but $80b is no axe; it's a pocket knife.
Which reminds me: I read a bit in the past week or so that unemployment figures there are not actual. Here is the jist of it:
During 1947, the government agency who is in charge, decided there were certain numbers of working age people who weren't employable and would not be counted in their statistics. As I remember, that original number was 1 out of 5 to 7. The number not counted now was reported to be 1 of 3.
Now for the point. The fellow said any unemployment numbers seen today can be doubled to reach a "real" total. This being the case, true unemployment is actually aroung 20percent.
If that report is anywhere near being acurate, simple math tells one that if a tax rise of 20percent across the board were inacted it will do NOTHING to reduce the deficit.
In fact with a rise of 20percent the deficit would increase because it would only make up for those no longer employed and ground would be lost to those "automatic" budget increases.
And this little exercise does not address the additional Trillions of spending that have been passed but will not go into effect until a few years from now.
Originally posted by MacSwainSimple maths does not mean that, because you have two figures the same, they cancel each other out to make 0.
Now for the point. The fellow said any unemployment numbers seen today can be doubled to reach a "real" total. This being the case, true unemployment is actually aroung 20percent.
If that report is anywhere near being acurate, simple math tells one that if a tax rise of 20percent across the board were inacted it will do NOTHING to reduce the deficit.
...[text shortened]... for those no longer employed and ground would be lost to those "automatic" budget increases.
If unemployment now is at 20%, the economy generates X in taxes.
If unemployment remains at 20% and there is a 20% increase in taxes, of course the tax revenue will increase.
Originally posted by utherpendragonObama never promised not to EVER raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. What he said was "Under my plan .................." The plan he was referring to was his Economic one laid out during the campaign. At no point, did he say that plan was to ALWAYS be in force and it would make no sense to interpret a plan that was discussing revenue and spending for the next fiscal year as binding for all eternity. There was none of the ridiculous "I will never raise taxes" that John McCain irresponsibly threw around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
[b]Above is his pledge.
just in,"individual mandate is" now a tax according to the White house.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/07/18/wh-individual-mandate-now-a-tax/
Which means, by the way, that when the President promised not to raise taxes he lied. And he thinks that the American ...[text shortened]... because he and his party’s leadership cadre all think that the American people are stupid.[/b]
All this is just another right wing distortion, of course. The mandate penalty is BOTH a tax and a penalty, but chances are hardly anyone will wind up paying it.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are full of crap as usual. Where did he ever say it was his plan for the next fiscal year?
Obama never promised not to EVER raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. What he said was "Under my plan .................." The plan he was referring to was his Economic one laid out during the campaign. At no point, did he say that plan was to ALWAYS be in force and it would make no sense to interpret a plan that was discussing revenue a ...[text shortened]... e penalty is BOTH a tax and a penalty, but chances are hardly anyone will wind up paying it.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThe budget probably could be brought back into balance without any further tax increases on those making under $250,000 if there were massive cuts in military and national security spending coupled with bringing the taxation of the wealthy back to pre-Reagan level both has to rates on income taxes and nonearned income (capital gains, dividends, etc.).
[/b]You seem to believe a rise in taxes are the only solution:
(quote) “Obama made an untenable promise and is now breaking it. It says more about people that believed that such a promise was keepable than it does about Obama.”
Why you arrived at the conclusion rising taxes are unavoidable is demonstrated when you say:
(quote) ”Even ...[text shortened]...
$13,256,000,000,000
These figures represent an increase of app. 30% over 1-½ years.
Don't hold yer breath waiting for a US Congress to do that, however.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/
Obama never promised not to EVER raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. What he said was "Under my plan .................." The plan he was referring to was his Economic one laid out during the campaign. At no point, did he say that plan was to ALWAYS be in force and it would make no sense to interpret a plan that was discussing revenue a ...[text shortened]... e penalty is BOTH a tax and a penalty, but chances are hardly anyone will wind up paying it.
Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover.
Reality: In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits.
During the campaign, he criticized John McCain for just suggesting that.
“My opponent can't make that pledge [not to raise taxes] and here’s why: for the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits," he said in the same speech.
But now it's Obama who wants to tax health plans:
“This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies,” he said in his health care address to Congress.
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat is any economic plan proposed by a candidate?
You are full of crap as usual. Where did he ever say it was his plan for the next fiscal year?
A combination of measures intended to be enacted to address the present economic situation. "Under my plan" is treated as mere verbiage by you and the other nuts when it is a rather clear statement that Obama is referring to his short term economic proposals.
If you can show me a promise by Obama to NEVER raise ANY type of taxes except on those making over $250,000 a year, you win.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe fee on "Cadillac" policies is not part of the bill finally passed, Z.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/
Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama said in a September 2008 ...[text shortened]... ies a fee for their most expensive policies,” he said in his health care address to Congress.
Originally posted by MacSwainSimple, and wrong maths.
Well, it would show a start. About 500 dollars per worker?
Which reminds me: I read a bit in the past week or so that unemployment figures there are not actual. Here is the jist of it:
During 1947, the government agency who is in charge, decided there were certain numbers of working age people who weren't employable and would not be counted in their sta ...[text shortened]... s of spending that have been passed but will not go into effect until a few years from now.
Originally posted by no1marauderIts pretty cut and dry.
What is any economic plan proposed by a candidate?
A combination of measures intended to be enacted to address the present economic situation. "Under my plan" is treated as mere verbiage by you and the other nuts when it is a rather clear statement that Obama is referring to his short term economic proposals.
If you can show me a pr ...[text shortened]... y Obama to NEVER raise ANY type of taxes except on those making over $250,000 a year, you win.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."-OBAMA
Nowhere has he said only in the first fiscal year of my presidency.
You are correct in saying it is a short term pledge. 4 year min.
He broke his pledge w/the smoking tax, then tanning, now this. And the only people being hurt are the middle class.
Even the partisan politifact.com says he has broken his promise.
Next on his plate is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Esentially raising taxes on the poor and middle class
Originally posted by utherpendragonI repeat: If you can show me a promise by Obama to NEVER raise ANY type of taxes except on those making over $250,000 a year, you win.
Its pretty cut and dry.
[b]"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."-OBAMA
Nowhere has he said only in the first fiscal year of my presidency.
You are correct in sayin ...[text shortened]... ate is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Esentially raising taxes on the poor and middle class[/b]
You won't be able to and we both know it.
At about this point in his first term, Ronald Reagan was no more popular than Obama for pretty much the same reason i.e. there was a recession with unemployment over 9%. We know what happened in 1984. I'd say considering how far right the Republican base has moved it's very doubtful the party will nominate anyone who is likely to beat Obama in 2012.