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!

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.

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...

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.

I'm all for a free market correction, as painful as it will be--it is needed to purge the excess. However, if you argue it from the administration/political standpoint the root cause of a lot of the economic crisis stems from housing. Waaay too much inventory was built, way too much credit was extended to overlevered consumers who should not have qualified for it. Stabilizing the housing market to arrest the deflation of asset prices is a major policy goal. Reducing a well known incentive to buy a home does not help accomplish this goal, IMHO.

Say I'm Joe Schmoe renting an apartment. I get no interest deductions, I get no equity, and I get no debt. In a traditional 30 year mortgage, the vast majority of the loan payment goes towards interest on the front end of the loan (i.e. you are not building equity early in the life of the loan if you're just making the basic mortgage payment). If that tax deduction is lowered or removed, where is the incentive to take ownership? At the margin, this action hampers, not helps the housing market and associated oversupply.

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...

I don't think mortgage interest deductibility is high on the list of causes of irrational exuberance so much as it's just a good argument for owning vs. renting. And since Obama is defining "high-income" as somewhere around $250K/year I think a lot more people are going to be negatively impacted by this than not.

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.

I got hit with AMT again this year.

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.

Bush's budgets slowly increased each year from 1.6 trillion to 2.1 through his tenure (rough estimate... not 100% sure but I know that's pretty damn close). SO FAR we're looking at 3.6 trillion in spending. What gets my goat is that there is this $684 billion being set aside as a "down payment" for universal health care. WTF! We don't have universal health care and he's just taking more of our tax money and holding on to it, while the program doesn't yet exist.

But anyway: $3.6 trillion in spending divided by 139 million taxpayers equals $25,573.48 PER TAXPAYER cost.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_h...t_each_taxpayer

Let's also study the magic number of 2%. The top 2% of the taxpayers are paying 62% of all the income taxes. And, soaking the "rich" is the answer? What happens when they stop spending and investing? Not to mention, Obama is saying that the "rich" will only have a 2% increase in their tax rates from 37 to 39%... which is also a lie because certain deductions that exist now will be cut, which will actually make that tax rate go up to 41-42%.

The 2% Illusion

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123...ss_opinion_main

lol... watch what happens to charitable donations too by the way, since their tax deductability is being reduced to 28% on that. They'll shrink. The irony is, people who get help from generous donars will be getting less of them as people cut back.

Plus, I love how Obama claimed there were no earmarks in the bill but there are really between 8500 and 9000. Then on Scarborough this morning Pelosi's lieutenant Steny Hoyer says (paraphrasing) "9000? that's crazy. There are more like 4000... But it's been very substantially reduced, uh, cut in half over the last two years." It's unreal how Orwellian this is becoming. Just blatantly lie to the public while the total opposite is happening.

Cheers to this:

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.

-you know who

This is turning into a runaway train and can't be stopped.

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.

Cry me a river kids. Rush et al. cry me a fucking river.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

How many people on unemployment does Rush Limbaugh know?

-2?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

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.

This was, by far, the stupidest thing in this budget. So let me get this straight, falling home prices is the problem, so we're going to pull away incentives to buy homes? But we're talking about principal reductions for those in foreclosure (some of which are probably the same people that can't get deductions now, tbh)? Who's fucking brilliant idea was this? And on charities, too?? Aren't they already being pinched enough?

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.

I don't understand how both parties have so little economic sense. There's really no one to support anymore, between the party of NO! and this craziness. I expected the Bush tax cuts to expire, and that was all well and good, but this is sheer lunacy when you're trying to inspire economic growth. 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.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul