Sorry James. Try again. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions. Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non- defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole. In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much. spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
Look at the attachment and look at deficits through the years. Look at 2000-2008 when Bush was in office and Republicans were in the house and senate. You'll see when Democrats came into the house and senate and look at the deficits increase immediately. Deficits were half of what they are now. Look at Clinton's years and look at the Republican house and senate during his years when he built a surplus. In case you can't see it, just go here- http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
What boggles my mind the most is how those who want to say this is obamas fault act like nothing before him help create this mess. Further more, to deny that our government has not helped to CONTINUE this mess is worse than ignorant. He has put forth 6 jobs acts and numerous plans to tax in the right places to help cover the sluggish economy. Tax those who can afford it so the government has more money to cover the shortage. Including taxing companies who use other countries to make money and FORCE them to put money back into the American economy when business wants to invest money in other places. Cut the bullshit funding for things we don't need right now. Cutting out food stamps and medical when no one is working right now will NOT help. Quit acting like a bunch of butt hurt white men who simply oppose the president on his skin color. Who gives five fucks what color you are if the country needs to come together to work together to help ALL American people prosper. Reverse completely the laws (trickle down hefty tax cuts for the uber rich) that helped putus here. And for the love of fuck.. Can they PLEASE stop redefining rape and fighting over how a woman makes a decision as to what she does with her own body. The government that Obama has worked with has opposed him at every turn. 6 jobs plans. All voted against. It isn't just bushes fault. But it's not like Obama hasn't tried to put the small American people on a more fair ground with the larger more in control rich American people.
I'm not saying it is entirely Obama's fault. I have placed blame on Bush and Fed Chairman Greenspan for leaving rates too low for too long. In 2007-2008, we could have raised top income tax rates to 37% and raised interest rates slightly to prevent that market collapse. But the spending problem has historically been an issue with Democrats and it is no different for Barack Obama. The argument of taxing those who can afford it makes no sense. The rich will be rich under any president- Democrat or Republican. By Obama levying a higher tax on the wealthy does absolutely nothing for our economy or government. It is a political ploy to get poor people to vote for him. Romney's plan is only addressing helping the low and middle class. Capital gains tax will be removed for all low and middle income people. It will remain for all high income people.
Uh huh. Sureeeeee. And I'm a phat black woman in new York on the verge of a cure for cancer.. Ssuuuurrrrreeeeeeeee.....
Spin it any way you like James, per my last post the president is on track to keep his promises on the deficit, and blame for the debt lies with the fed and Geitner more so than Obama.
It's not spin, it's a mathematical impossibility for Obama to cut the deficit in half continuing with his own policies. The only way for that to happen is to raise income taxes on everyone at least 5% and then he would still have to cut spending. Ben Bernanke is not the problem. He is doing everything within his power as Fed Chairman to monitor and maintain rates. This is a policy issue that rests solely with Obama and Geitner.
Once again, here are the facts regarding the deficit. According to the budget proposal, the deficit at the end of Obama’s first term in fiscal year 2013 would be $768 billion. That’s about a 46 percent decrease from the actual $1.4 trillion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2009. That’s very close to what the president claimed. The Fed basically dictated the terms of both stimulus bills, which is having the large impact on the debt situation.
Shocking! A budget proposal from the White House that says they will cut the deficit in half. Of course the Obama administration is going to say that. Funny how it conveniently is in 2013, right after the election period. Obama is not instituting the policies to make that a reality. He can tell you that all he wants, but he won't make the deep cuts necessary to actually achieve it.
I'm so tired of this "redistribution of wealth" argument. They are using the phrase to imply that the administration has some sort of Soviet-style (read: not Marxist) style of income leveling strategy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The founding principles of this country (and I'm no particular fan of the 'Founding Fathers') include a progressive taxation framework from each according to his/her ability to finance expenditures on public goods (roads, security, civilization). None of the global economy would be possible without the enormous outlays in public expenditure (global markets, patrol of the high seas, roads, order, freedom from brigandry, etc) needed to ensure its functioning. It is NOT some sort of alien concept (read: imported from Europe, which for reasons unknown to me, has acquired some sort of taint; ridiculously, when considering that all of the Enlightenment ideals that the 'Founding Fathers' subscribed to were European in origin). This fantasy of unfettered markets has never existed in human history. EVER. Nor should it.
The issue isn't progressive taxation, both sides agree that is fine. But Obama is trying to single out a particular group to tax more heavily for political purposes and that is wrong. When Clinton and other Democrats raised taxes, they raised it for all Americans. He was not divisive in his tactics.
But the reasoning for this is that there are laws in place that allow the wealthy to avoid this taxation scheme by placing their money abroad or earning it in the form of capital gains, taxed at a lower rate. There are barriers to entry to these investment schemes that prevent those with lower incomes from participating.
But Romney is only removing capital gains tax on low and middle income people, not the wealthy. And everyone has the ability to use the loopholes and deductions to lower their tax bill. I go to H&R Block every year and the tax rep uses every credit and deduction she can find for us. That isn't unique to the wealthy. Its like I said on here, the wealthy will be wealthy regardless. But to place extra burden on them for something that will not give us any economic gain is wrong in my opinion. It is purely to create an evil monster for people to be mad at other than Obama. His advisors are brilliant that's for sure.
Hedge fund investments with 12% returns often have $50K minimums (there are a few that allow as low as $10-20K, but they are few and fare between) to invest. And a person with low earnings doesn't have the ability to sequester such a large percentage of income into one of these investment vehicles. I think all income should be taxed at the same rate, and then you could probably significantly lower income taxes if you did.
All income cannot be taxed at the same rate. You would definitely hurt the low and middle class in that scenario. Trying to change the tax laws on capital gains for wealthy individuals won't work because they have the ability to trade on foreign markets and keep money offshore. So that would hurt business in America further because our corporations wouldn't be receiving investment money to grow our businesses. That's why you need to do what the Republicans are suggesting and take corporate tax rate down from 35% to 25%. Businesses could hire more people and it might entice some foreign corporations to put offices here in America. Being a business friendly country is what made this nation great. Now government has turned into nothing but a cash grab trying to squeeze every last penny out of the people you need to turn the country around.
If you obtain more income from the higher end of the income spectrum by taxing capital gains at a higher level, you can afford to lower the overall rate and give the lower class some tax relief. There is nothing immutable about this arrangement. You can tax capital that is exported, as well as so-called 'hot money' used for short term arbitrage advantages to prevent this, through appropriate legislation like that used by many countries. The US is one of the few countries that has almost NO capital controls. Much of the income firms receive for investment is shipped offshore for FDI. All corporations have done with the breaks they already receive is ship jobs and investment offshore. No amount of further concessions to business will beat the wage differential offered by 1.3 billion oppressed Chinese workers, nor the Southeast Asians, Indians and Africans in line after them before workers in the developed world and Latin America would theoretically be cheap enough to incentivize the return of multinationals. The job of government is not to appease business. It is to deliver broad legitimacy to its exercise of authority, name, democracy, or justice, as determined by the body politic. Businesses would prefer not to pay wages. Is it government's job to enforce that wish as well?
No you can't. Capital gains is a tax that is only imposed when somebody decides to exercise a sale and makes a gain. If the person does not sell the stock or incurs a loss there is no tax. So you cannot base income tax relief on increasing capital gains. Companies will continue to ship jobs offshore if there is more of an incentive to do so. We will never solve the wage differential between countries, the only thing we can do is make the tax environment more friendly.
Correct. And the millions of daily transactions on the stock exchange and the income realized from them should be taxed at the same rate. I did not say a direct one-for-one tradeoff must happen. But increased revenue on the aggregate does allow for cuts to other revenue streams. Don't believe me? Watch governments around the country shift tax burdens toward sectors they choose to encourage certain activities (i.e. shift from income to property and sales tax, like in FL).
