TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The new Obama Budget thread
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
The new Obama Budget thread
Basically just bankrupted Sallie Mae for starters...sure does make the non-fiscal conservative GOP of the last 8 years look like extreme fiscal conservatives in hindsight.
| quote: |
Obama Delivers $3.6 Trillion Budget Blueprint Plan Would Raise Taxes on Affluent, Businesses; Aims to 'Break From a Troubled Past' WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama delivered Congress a $3.6 trillion budget blueprint Thursday that hopes to "break from a troubled past" with a sharp shift toward expanded government activism, tax increases on affluent families and businesses, and spending cuts targeted at those he says profited from "an era of profound irresponsibility." The budget blueprint for fiscal year 2010 is one of the most ambitious policy prescriptions in decades, a reordering of the federal government to provide national health care, shift the energy economy away from oil and gas, and boost the federal commitment to education. One war would end, as troops leave Iraq, while another would ramp up in Afghanistan. To fund it all, families earning over $250,000 and a variety of businesses will pay a steep price, but Mr. Obama implored Americans to own up to the mistakes of the past while accepting profound sacrifices. "We need to be honest with ourselves about what costs are being racked up, because that's how we'll come to grips with the hard choices that lie ahead," Mr. Obama said Thursday morning. "And there are some hard choices that lie ahead." The president blamed the nation's economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II. [President Obama, accompanied by Budget Director Peter Orszag (right) and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaks about his fiscal 2010 federal budget on Thursday morning.] Associated Press President Obama, accompanied by Budget Director Peter Orszag (right) and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaks about his fiscal 2010 federal budget on Thursday morning. "This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history," the president states in an opening message of the 134-page document. "We arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies' executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C." By 2013, the deficit would drop to $533 billion but begin to climb from there again as the heart of the Baby Boom begins drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits. The budget's introduction is likely to herald one of the fiercest political fights Washington has seen in years, waged on multiple fronts. Within minutes, Republicans were lambasting a document they called class warfare, designed to mire the nation in recession for years to come. Business lobbyists were girding for battle even before the budget's unveiling. Even Democrats are likely to blanch at cuts to agriculture and other programs that have been tried before � and have failed repeatedly. The budget sets aside an additional $250 billion to complete the president's effort to rescue the financial markets and stabilize the banking sector. That would come on top of the $700 billion already allocated by Congress. And it is likely to grow. The budget makes clear that reserve would be used to leverage the purchase of toxic assets weighing down the banking sector's books, $750 billion in asset purchases overall. That could mean a doubling of the original bailout in the end. Mr. Obama proposes large increases in education funding, including indexing Pell Grants for higher education to inflation and converting the popular scholarship to an automatic "entitlement" program. High-speed rail would gain a $1 billion-a-year grant program, part of a larger effort to boost infrastructure spending even beyond the funds in his $787 billion stimulus plan. The Defense Department would see a $20.4 billion boost in 2010, a 4% increase from this year, slowing its growth from the Bush years but securing personnel increases for the Army and Marine Corps. Mr. Obama will request an additional $75.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of 2009 and another $130 billion for 2010, as he withdraws most combat troops from Iraq over 19 months but sends many of them to Afghanistan. In one of the budget's most ambitious proposals, the president plans to cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, forcing polluters to purchase permits for emissions that would be slowly brought down to 14% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. The sale of those permits, beginning in 2012, would reap $646 billion through 2019. Of those revenues, $525.7 billion would be devoted to extending Mr. Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" $800 tax credit for working couples. Another $120 billion would go to clean energy technology. He acknowledged his $630 billion fund for a national health insurance program will not be enough to ensure access to health care for all Americans, but he said it will be a start. To finance his proposals, the president has clearly chosen winners and losers -- with the affluent heading the list of losers. In populist tones that reflect an anger he notably avoided on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama wrote, "Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care, and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. In the face of these trade-offs, Washington has ignored the squeeze on middle-class families that is making it harder for them to get ahead. There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few." [Budget Salve] In that sense, the budget is payback. As expected, tax increases will rise for singles earning $200,000 and couples earning $250,000, beginning in 2011 -- for a total windfall of $656 billion over 10 years. Income tax hikes would raise $339 billion alone. Limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions would bring in another $180 billion. Higher capital gains rates would bring in $118 billion. The estate tax, scheduled to be repealed next year, would instead be preserved forever, with the value of estates over $3.5 million -- $7 million for couples -- taxed at 45%. Businesses would be hit, too. The budget envisions reaping $210 billion over the next decade by limiting the ability of U.S.-based multinational companies to shield overseas profits from taxation. Another $24 billion would come from hedge fund and private equity managers, whose income would be taxed at income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Oil and gas companies would be hit particularly hard, with the repeal of multiple tax credits and deductions. The federal government would take over most student lending. Managed care companies would lose their subsidies for offering Medicare plans. Farmers with operating incomes over $500,000 would see their farm subsidies phased out. And cotton storage would no longer be financed by the federal government. "There are times where you can afford to redecorate your house, and there are times where you need to focus on rebuilding its foundation," Mr. Obama said as he unveiled his plan. "Today we have to focus on foundations." |
Bye Bye US Dollar.
A couple of highlights pointed out by ISI this morning:
* The budget will have a "placeholder" of $750B in additional funds for the financial rescue, but the administration has not decided when or if it will ask Congress for the money. The $750B figure will appear in the budget at a cost of $250B, which is the present value of the estimated loss taxpayers would suffer on the $750B.
* The administration budget includes a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would raise $75B in revenue in 2012. This proposal would hurt major producers of greenhouse gases, including coal, oil and gas, and manufacturers and help alternative energy companies.
* The health plan is expected to cost over $1 TRILLION over the next decade and the budget offers $635B in offsets--a $318B tax increase from reducing the deductibility of mortgage interest and charitable contributions for upper-income individuals, $177B in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans and $139B in other health care savings. The budget would save $20 billion over a 10 year period by linking hospital reimbursmements to better patient care.
* The budget allows the Bush tax cuts that benefit those who make more than $250,000 to expire at the end of 2010. It would eliminate the "carried interest" loophole and raise taxes on income corporations generate overseas.
* The budget proposes legislation that would create a pathway for generic biologics and limit the practice of "evergreening," where a company makes very minor changes in an existing product to extend its exclusivity.
* The budget would not fun further work on preparing Yucca Mountain to be the repository for nuclear waste. This would set back by years a permanent storage site for nuclear waste, which is bad for the nuclear power industry.
Lowering mortgage interest deductibility??? I thought we were trying to stabilize the housing market here? Taking away one of the biggest advantages of owning a home seems like a moronic way to stimulate housing! And impeding nuclear power? Nuclear is not the nuclear of the 80s. Nuclear is clean energy and desperately needed as part of an energy plan if we are to be serious about lowering our uses of coal and crude oil. Eeesh.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I thought we were trying to stabilize the housing market here? Taking away one of the biggest advantages of owning a home seems like a moronic way to stimulate housing! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter The presumption, I take it, is that we need to stimulate housing in order to stabilize the market? I think that is rather questionable... was it not precisely overstimulation of that market that has brought about the present destablization? That being so, it seems a strange inference that further stimulus is the cure. |
| quote: |
| It seems to me that, quite the contrary, we need to pursue regulations that will inhibit the sort of "irrational exuberance" in the housing market which has proven problematic. Now, I am not at all convinced that a mere reduction in the tax incentive towards home ownership for high income individuals is likely to have a significant inhibitory effect, but it seems like a reasonable way to implement a much needed increase in revenues... |
Class warfare is on like Donkey Kong. Call me when the top marginal tax rate hits 99%.
| quote: |
| By Ryan J. Donmoyer Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama proposed almost $1 trillion in higher taxes on the 2.6 million highest- earning Americans, Wall Street financiers, U.S.-based multinational corporations, and oil companies to pay for permanent tax breaks for lower earners. Obama�s 2010 budget proposal, released today, would reinstate the top two Clinton-era tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent in 2011, up from the 33 percent and 35 percent the richest Americans now pay. It would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent for top earners, up from the 15 percent set by former President George W. Bush in 2003. The tax increases, which Obama vowed to impose as a presidential candidate, would be the first on high-income earners since 1993 and would reverse a course set by Bush of lowering the tax burden on the nation�s wealthiest people. �It�s a clear repudiation of Bush�s policy,� said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park. �It�s more Obama Robin Hood.� Obama�s budget does keep in place Bush�s tax cuts that benefit lower- and middle-income earners and it preserves a sliver of policy that benefits the more affluent: A preferential tax rate on corporate dividends. Before Bush, dividends were taxed as ordinary income, or at rates as high as 39.6 percent in the 1990s. �Hugely Positive� �It is a hugely positive step to keep that part of the �03 changes,� said Pamela Olson, who was the top tax official in Bush�s Treasury Department when the tax rate on dividends was reduced. �It�s good economic policy, good corporate governance policy, and good tax policy.� Higher-income earners, primarily families with more than $250,000 of income, would face an additional tax burden under a proposal to reinstate limitations on their itemized deductions, which would subject more of their income to tax. In all, top- earning households would pay $636.7 billion in additional taxes over the next decade, Obama�s budget estimates. Linda Beale, a tax-law professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, said �many will object to reinstituting phase-outs for itemized deductions because of the complications that creates.� Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican leader in the House, said Obama can expect a wall of opposition to his proposed tax increase on top-earners. Roughly half of Americans earning $250,000 are small-business owners, and the proposed increase will stifle the troubled economy, he said. �Overwhelming Opposition� �There will be overwhelming opposition from the American people and House Republicans to the idea that we should raise taxes during a recession,� Pence said in an interview. �Raising taxes in a recession is not a strategy for recovery.� Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, said in an e-mail, �You cannot help the job-seeker by punishing the job creator.� The higher taxes on individuals will largely be used to pay for expanded health coverage for lower-income Americans and to make permanent Obama�s tax breaks such as a payroll tax credit worth up to $1,000 that was adopted on a temporary basis in the $787 billion fiscal stimulus measure earlier this month. �He�s being so generous at the lower-income level that making $200,000 is going to be like falling off a cliff,� said Dustin Stamper, an analyst in the National Tax Office at Grant Thornton LLP. �Say what you want about the Bush tax cuts favoring the rich, but this is just becoming punitive.� AMT Lives On Obama�s budget also assumes Congress will continue to index the alternative minimum tax for inflation. The AMT is a parallel system that can impose higher rates on families earning between $75,000 and $500,000 when their deductions are too high relative to their income. Executives at private-equity firms, venture-capital firms, some hedge funds and other partnerships that receive a 20 percent �carried interest� in the firm�s profits would see their tax burdens nearly triple under Obama�s budget. Most of their carried interest currently is taxed at the 15 percent rate for long-term capital gains. Obama is asking Congress to tax the profit share as ordinary income, arguing that it�s a form of wages; under his plan, most executives would pay 39.6 percent. That proposal will likely reignite a debate that was waged by Congress in 2007 when the House of Representatives approved the change and the Senate never considered it. Corporate Tax Increase Obama proposed $353.5 billion in higher taxes on corporations over the next decade, the bulk of which would come from �reforming� rules that allow U.S.-based multinational corporations such as General Electric Co. to defer U.S. tax on profits they earn overseas. GE has about $75 billion offshore on which it has never paid U.S. taxes, according to its regulatory filings. Obama�s budget estimates such reforms and beefing up Internal Revenue Service enforcement of international tax rules would generate $210 billion in additional revenue over the next decade. He also proposed to limit tax shelters by requiring they serve a business purpose by redefining the tax code�s �economic substance doctrine.� �Last-In, First Out� He also proposed ending a tax-accounting technique called �last-in, first out� or LIFO, that primarily benefited oil and gas companies when oil topped $100 a barrel but is widely used across industries. Republican senators in April 2006 floated such a tax increase but backed off after Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson called the proposal a �backdoor windfall-profits tax.� In addition to oil companies, the repeal of LIFO would hit retailers, automakers and makers of non-automotive heavy equipment, textile makers, consumer products, drug companies, alcohol and tobacco manufacturers and wholesalers when times are good, according to tax experts. The accounting method has been commonly used since the 1930s and is viewed as the most accurate measure of income for financial statement purposes, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan panel. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/u...l=pol&emc=pola1
The new budget/deficit sounds horrific, but it also seems that it might be closer to what we've actually been running with the past few years. We just have all the numbers now.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/u...l=pol&emc=pola1 The new budget/deficit sounds horrific, but it also seems that it might be closer to what we've actually been running with the past few years. We just have all the numbers now. |
| quote: |
| Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can�t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama�s new spending ambitions. As a thought experiment, let�s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That�s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable �dime� of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion. Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006. |
| quote: |
| And let me ask you this. How many Democrat Party constituencies already live barely above the poverty line; have lived there all their lives; and are still, after 20 or 30 years, waiting for the Democrats to make things better; and their lives are not better; and they still vote Democrat? Some of them are never going to get the whole notion is not sustainable. So what's going to ultimately make them happy is when you and your family live a life that is closer to their existence. There's no desire on the part of Obama or anybody in his party to lift those people up and lift up the whole economy, to lift up our culture, to lift up as many families as possible in the game of prosperity. They want to slice people at the top down to size, and so you've called here and explained how it's happening to you, and it really is a sad thing. I don't know how many it is, but a lot of people hearing you, if they're Obama voters, are happy about it. But hang in. There's such a rabid get-even-with-'em-ism out there in our society and culture today on the part of the left that if you're looking for sympathy and understanding so that others might understand what's headed their way if they succeed as you and your husband have, they don't look at it that way. They're just happy that you're miserable or happy that this is happening to you, even though it doesn't mean one more dime to them. The Democrat Party has built up such a resentment for success, a resentment for achievement among people who don't... You just heard Podesta. "We want to reorder. We want to make things fair. We want a new playing field where the middle class rises, where everything's fair." Those people are the ones that are going to sit around and wait for this magic to happen, and they think the way it's going to happen is for money to be taken away from you -- and when they hear you call here and describe how money is being taken away, they're happy and then they think you're selfish because you say you're gonna cut back your charity. That's what we're all up against here. It used to be that people in that circumstance would aspire to be you and would have sympathy for what's happening 'cause they wouldn't want it to happen to them when they got to where you are. But we've had a number of years here where the Democrat Party has taken these poor people out there in the middle class and they've gotten to enough of them, where all they do is have envy and jealousy and resentment. So they hear your story and they (rubbing hands together). These are the people, by the way, that think they have all the compassion, concern, and caring in our culture and they're happy to hear you're unhappy. |
Don't have much problem with this take
| quote: |
| Budget winners and losers By: John Ward Anderson February 26, 2009 08:18 PM EST In a $3.7 trillion budget, there should be something for everyone. And there is, including � as hard as it may be for some to believe � pain. In shifting the nation's spending priorities, President Barack Obama highlights his plans for the rich to pay more and for the poor to get more. And he also focuses on key campaign pledges to make the country greener and more energy independent, to expand access to affordable health care, and to improve the nation's schools. The full details will not be known for weeks, but the 134-page snapshot of Obama's 2010 budget that was released Thursday gives a clear indication of who gets the elevator, and who gets the shaft. So herewith, five big losers and five key winners in Obama's spending blueprint. LOSERS Rich people, and the even the upper middle class Making $250,000 a year doesn't exactly make you Donald Trump these days, but to Barack Obama's team, that means your family is wealthy - and they're shifting a greater share of the tax burden onto you. They're doing it two ways - the one Obama campaigned on through his whole run for president is no surprise, by allowing Bush's income tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2011, meaning the marginal rates jump up again. The other was something of a surprise. Obama wants to roll back income tax deductions for people in that income bracket as well, steps that would reduce the amount saved in taxes by claiming mortgage interest and the like. He'll funnel that money to his health-care reserve fund. The numbers: Although this wealth redistribution scheme would hit rich people the hardest, most Americans will end up feeling some pain in one way or another, because the plan foresees a projected deficit of $712 billion in 2019, and by then, the national debt will have increased to about $23.1 trillion. Rich farmers Farmers who make more than $500,000 a year would see their farm subsidies phased out. The budget notes dryly that "direct payments are made to even large producers regardless of crop prices, losses, or whether the land is still under production." In other words, farmers getting paid on land that's not growing anything. But as in other parts of the budget, it's energy efficiency that comes to the rescue - don't grow corn, grow wind farms, Obama says. "Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat." The numbers: Reducing the farms subsidies will cost farmers about $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. Cutting federal subsidies to crop insurance companies and farmers will cost those two groups another $5.2 billion in the next decade. Rich oil companies Oil prices are down now but most Americans have gotten fed up with quarter upon quarter of record profits at ExxonMobil and the like. So Obama would close loopholes enjoyed by some oil, gas, coal and mining companies, and also raise the royalties and fees they pay to provide "a better return to taxpayers." In addition, Obama would levy a new excise tax on offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico "to close loopholes that have given oil companies excessive royalty relief." And it would increase the return from oil and gas production on Federal lands through "administrative actions, such as reforming royalties and adjusting rates" - aka higher taxes. The numbers: Closing loopholes, raising taxes and fees and repealing various deductions for gas, coal and oil companies will add $16.7 billion to federal coffers in 2011, increasing to about $48 billion by 2019. The Pentagon (but not veterans) Only in Washington is a 4 percent hike viewed as taking a hit, but so it goes for the Defense Department. Compared to the sort of increases enjoyed in the Bush administration, it's a sign that the salad days are over at the Pentagon. Homeland Security even faces a real cut in five years, as 9/11 fades further into memory. But Obama campaigned hard on the idea of improving health care for veterans and his budget puts his money where his mouth is. The numbers: Defense budget increases to $533.7 billion. Homeland Security rises slightly to $42.7 billion this year, but dwindles to $40.9 billion by 2014. The VA's $55.9 billion budget would be an 11 percent increase over the current year. George W. Bush While Obama's proposed budget will hit Bush hard in the wallet, just like other wealthy Americans, the main blow may be aimed at his reputation. The 134-page spending plan opens with a 10-page preamble entitled "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities" that lays blame for many of today's problems at the doorstep of the former president. "It is no coincidence that the policy failures of the past eight years have been accompanied by unprecedented Governmental secrecy and unprecedented access by lobbyists and the well-connected to policymakers in Washington. Consequently, the needs of those in the room trump those of their fellow citizens," the plan says. But others get blamed in a broad-brush condemnation: "For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the Nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," the budget says. It blasts "a legacy of irresponsibility," adding, "It's our responsibility to change it." WINNERS Sick people, but not all of them Obama wants to put America "on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." That's well short of universal health care right now, but more like a down-payment. And a hefty one, $634 billion over 10 years. The budget is short on details of exactly who would be covered, and when. He'd send more doctors, nurses and dentists to place in the country that don't have enough of them. And Obama also kicks in an increase for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, as part of a down-the-road commitment to double cancer research funding. The numbers: HHS would receive $76.8 billion for FY 2010 under the president's proposed plan. The plan proposes over $6 billion for cancer research, and another $330 million to help underserved areas. Hillary Rodham Clinton Somewhere, Colin Powell is jealous. The Bush White House funneled all the money to the Pentagon, especially after 9/11, but now the diplomats are getting a little budgetary love. Clinton came into the job promising to fight hard for a bigger State Department slice of the fiscal pie, and in her first outing, she succeeded. It's in keeping with Obama's goal to turn a more friendly face to the world, and try to rebuild some of the global relationships that grew strained under Bush. Obama's budget calls for putting the U.S. on a path to doubling its foreign assistance funding to "renew its role as a leader in global development and diplomacy." Global health programs, anti-terror and anti-proliferation efforts get a boost. The plan also lays out a added component to fighting the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan -by increasing "non-military assistance to both countries, providing additional funding for governance, reconstruction, counter-narcotics, and other development activities that will help counter extremists." The numbers: The federal spending plan increases the State Department's budget by a healthy 9.5 percent, to $51.7 billion in FY 2010. Environmentalists The budget includes big new spending for investments in "clean energy" technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Obama sees a nation dotted with wind farms and solar panels - and ties the effort to an effort to grow "green jobs" to pull the nation out of the recession. He also proposes loan guarantees to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases through a variety of means -- renewable energy projects, transmission projects, and carbon sequestration projects to keep smokestack gasses. The numbers: The budget proposes $26.3 billion for the Energy Department, on top of $38.7 billion included for energy programs in the recent stimulus package. People stuck in traffic The spending plan includes a five-year $5 billion high-speed rail state grant program, on top of $8 billion targeted for rail expansion in the stimulus package. "The President's proposal marks a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving," the budget plan says. But there's plenty of good old fashioned roads and bridges money, too. And if you must fly, Obama's kicking in about $800 million for long-term efforts to improve the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the air traffic control system. The numbers: Transportation spending would rise to $72.5 billion in the proposed budget, a slight increase over the current fiscal year, along with $48.1 billion approved in the recent stimulus package. College students looking for a job If you want to go to college, get a career, or are learning English as a second language, Obama wants to help you. Low-income students would get help completing college from a new five-year, $2.5 billion Access and Completion Incentive Fund. The numbers: The budget proposes $46.7 billion for education next year, a small increase over this year, but it comes on the heels of $81.1 billion in additional education spending recently approved by Congress in the $787 billion stimulus package. http://www.politico.com/news/storie...9388_Page3.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Cheers to this: -you know who This is turning into a runaway train and can't be stopped. |
How many people on unemployment does Rush Limbaugh know?
-2?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 The other was something of a surprise. Obama wants to roll back income tax deductions for people in that income bracket as well, steps that would reduce the amount saved in taxes by claiming mortgage interest and the like. He'll funnel that money to his health-care reserve fund. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy It's as though the only plus I can see with the Obama administration in that area is ending the sinkhole that is Iraq, and that's not even looking it'll have as large of a cutback as once thought. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Don't have much problem with this take |
| quote: |
| "He also proposes loan guarantees to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases through a variety of means -- renewable energy projects, transmission projects, and carbon sequestration projects to keep smokestack gasses." |
| quote: |
| The federal government will soon begin tapping into a huge new source of revenue by requiring companies to pay for the permission to emit so-called greenhouse gasses linked to global warming. The basic outline is that large sources of greenhouse gasses, such as electric utilities to purchase permits from the government for the gasses they emit, including carbon dioxide. A "cap-and-trade system" would be created, under which the government would place a cap, or limit, on the total amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted. Companies that need to exceed their allotted level must buy offsetting permits from those that emit less. |
| quote: |
| A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead? All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Ch�teau Lafite or Damian Hirst�s diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don�t need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage. �I don�t know why industrials would miss this opportunity,� said one trader last week. �They are using it to compensate for the tightening of credit and the slowdown, to pay for redundancies.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss From the "Winners" section of that article: Anyone else nervous about his whole "cap and trade" idea? McCain's dumb ass wanted it too, so it would probably come to us either way, but jesus... talk about a scam. It's basically just creating a market out of thin air (no pun intended) so the government can have a new taxable revanue stream. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29395517/ Ok, so we got that. But here's where the scam/scheme comes into play: Peter Orszag, the Congressional Budget Office director, now the head of Office and Management and Budget under Obama, told the House Ways and Means committee in September that such a system would create a new commodity, the right to emit carbon dioxide... a new commodity government could tax. Didn't realize that air was a "new commodity"... what a joke. "The CBO estimated that by 2020 the value of these allowances could total between 50 and $300 billion annually, an enormous revenue stream that at the high end would be equal in size to roughly half the benefits paid out in Social Security last year." WTF. If anyone has noticed, this idea has already been tried in Europe and is failing miserably: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...arket-pollution The laws of supply and demand, no? "All of which has set off what Julian Glover calls the 'Great Pollution Fire Sale'. He blames the EU for being too generous in its allocation of carbon credits, but the allocation was calculated during economic growth. The EU wanted to make sure that the cap-and-trade system didn�t interfere with the economy, and so made sure that the energy producers didn�t get disincentivized enough to create artifical energy shortages that would have stalled growth. Now, of course, Europe has all sorts of excess capacity in energy production thanks to the economic downturn of the past few months. The cap-and-trade system essentially subsidizes non-production, and the energy producers have cashed in. Only now, those credits aren�t worth warm spit, because no one else is ready to start producing enough to worry about exceeding carbon caps. It�s a perfectly-formed system for failure; no one would part with the credits in boom times, and no one will buy them in a bust. Part of this comes from the fact that the commodity being traded has no essential value anyway. It�s air, the ultimate vaporware product. There is no scarcity in carbon dioxide, and so markets for it will always be artificial and contrived. Glover�s criticism about the amount of credits is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem isn�t the credits, but the falsity of the entire operation." -ED Morrissey Why do we never seem to learn from the failures that Europe tries with programs such as these? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I was actually surprised the market didn't sell off more today. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised the Dow broke into the 6000s in the next trading day or two. |
Wow Josh, that was one of the worst editorials I have ever read. And god damn if I don't have the best signature in this joint.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Shakka  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Wow Josh, that was one of the worst editorials I have ever read. And god damn if I don't have the best signature in this joint. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Maybe check your email spam folder for something better then. Obama�s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas Hmm, bye bye Reagan. Stale ideas for a past age. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka A sad statement for sure (and don't worry, I get the Times). I must remind myself that you were but an insignificant dot in a glob of semen when Reagan was in his prime so your criticism rings pretty hollow. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 lol so we're not allowed to have opinions on anything before our time? I'll be sure to remember that next time you bring up the New Deal or parallels to the great depression or whathaveyou. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Well gee, Josh. If you actually have any substantive criticisms of Reagan (or anything for that matter), other than to just say "Stale ideas for a past age" without actually saying which of his policies you find wrong and "stale," then yes, I think you would be better served to bite your tongue. But g'head if you really want. You can have an opinion on anything you want. Please convince me that the solution to too much debt is unprecedented, massive amounts of new debt and redistribution schemes. I'm waiting. On another note, do you have a job yet? |
| quote: |
| End Times for Reaganism Tuesday, October 28, 2008 When John McCain at last focused on the economy in this campaign, he recycled the Republican playbook from the late 70s and early 80s. Those old moves had had a remarkable shelf life, lasting a generation. They had carried the first of the hapless Bushes to the White House in 1988 and powered Newt Gingrich�s revolution in 1994. Even at the start of a new century they were still in use, occupying the heart of George W. Bush�s domestic economic policies. But now McCain is learning the hard way, even if he won�t yet admit it, that the Reagan playbook�s time has come and gone. The old Republican trick was to lie about taxes: Democrats would raise everybody�s and Republicans would cut everybody�s. (In reality, Republican largesse meant the millionaire reaped a windfall while the waitress got pennies and the public debt soared.) McCain has resuscitated that canard, making the case against Obama�s progressive tax policy. But he�ll lose the argument�and the Presidency�because the Republican era of wholesale deregulation and the redistribution of wealth, upward, is over. It is no longer enough to utter conservative epithets like �liberal� and �tax.� McCain�s implication that Obama wants to �spread the wealth� around rather than create wealth is dissonant at a time when Republicans are presiding over the greatest wealth destruction in history. Meantime, Obama has brilliantly pounded two numbers into the national consciousness�$250,000 (you don�t face a tax increase if you earn less) and 95 percent (the percentage of Americans who will receive a tax cut under Obama�s proposal). As the campaign entered its final fortnight, smart Republicans began suggesting that McCain put some spin on this ball to give it a semblance of still being in play. During a debate with me last week in Washington, Frum urged McCain�s campaign to grasp for yet another message�this time, the danger of one party dominance of Washington. Conservatives heartily approved of one party�their party�s�dominance from 2003 to 2007. What they dread now is that Democratic ascendance could lead to horrors like national health reform. Although the faithful chant, �Obama, Pelosi, Reid� at McCain�s sparsely attended rallies, voters overall now scorn the appeal to divided government. In addition to being politically misguided, this latest Republican argument is flatly ahistorical. Great economic challenges�from the New Deal in 1932, to the new economics of the 1960s (which followed three recessions in the preceding decade), to the Clinton fiscal turnaround in 1993�were all handled by one party�the Democratic Party, as it happened�in charge at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Even the exception proved the rule. In 1981, President Reagan enjoyed a Republican Senate and effective control of the House on taxes and spending due to support from conservative Democrats. Back in 2008, we keep hearing about Joe the Plumber. If McCain were paying Joe a plumber�s hourly wage for his time, he wouldn�t have any cash left for travel or television. Yet it still doesn�t seem to be working. The evident failure of McCain�s argument, the last in a series of tactical improvisations, is more than a prelude to defeat for one man or one party in one election. Instead, the 2008 campaign has shown that we have, at long last, entered post-Reagan America. At what may be the dawn of a new progressive era, Republicans will have to make a choice. I don�t believe they ever will, or even should, proclaim �me too� and mimic Democrats. Instead, they should rethink and then renew their purpose, asking hard questions about the meaning of conservative principles in a different economy and a changing world. The alternative is to repeat the past, perhaps with Sarah Palin, the hockey mom in couture, in a starring role. Ronald Reagan, who in his dealings with the Russians proved he was more realist than ideologue, would surely look at such a legacy and ask: �Where�s the rest of me?� http://www.theweek.com/article/inde...s_for_Reaganism |
| quote: |
(BOOK) Reaganism & the Death of Representative Democracy By Walter Williams This is a reasoned but passionate look at how Reaganism--the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan--has severely damaged representative democracy as created by the nation's founders. According to Williams, Reagan and his foremost disciple George W. Bush have created a plutocracy where the United States is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people but is ruled by the wealthiest individuals and corporate America. Refreshingly unafraid to point out that Reaganism's antigovernment fundamentalism stands on feet of day, Walter Williams asks that Americans move from their political apathy to pay attention to the politicians and the corporations lurking behind the power curtain to see the dangers they represent to the true essential of the American way of life. Williams's most important contribution is his extended analysis of the central role the key institutions--the presidency, Congress, the federal agencies--must play for the U.S. government to be capable in both sustaining representative democracy and protecting the safety and economic security of the American people. A clear result of the weakened institutions has been the grossly inadequate homeland security effort following September 11, and the massive corporate fraud revealed by Enron and other large firms that robbed the nation of hundreds of billions of dollars in stock values and depleted the pension savings of millions of people. The initial destructive below that damaged the institutions of governance can be traced to Ronald Reagan and his simplistic antigovernment philosophy that fostered rapacious business practices and personal greed. The book also takes the media to task, criticizing the dismalrecord of failing to investigate the political and corporate chicanery that has brought us this pass. Keenly argued and scrupulously documented, Walter Williams has written a stinging wake-up call to the dangers of the demise of representative democracy and the rise of plutocracy that American citizens can ignore only at their peril. FULL BOOK HERE |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Hmm, bye bye Reagan. Stale ideas for a past age. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.