Republicans will not go along. They are delusional. Paul Ryan is now saying that the gap between the rich and the poor is President Obama's fault. The President is not letting the trickle-downers enough chance to trickle down. Never mind that they've been trickling down since Reagan, and that is the period when the middle class dissolved and wages stagnated. Trickle down doesn't work. A moderate budget like the President's (which does increase some taxes on the wealthy) would help, but it won't pass.
1
Please those of you who believe the rich are over taxed remember Mittens ' 13% rate. 90% is too high unless like during Ike's administration you are the only country with any manufacturing capabilities. Between 40 and 50% would be the most reasonable on the top earners and that should include all income.
Please remember that the hedge fund managers have been paying a much lower rate since they have been claiming that it' investment return(other people's) and not wages. Just think what they would pay on their millions. There is no such thing as trickle down just trickle up. The middle class and below spend their money , it keeps in circulation. They do not have enough to invest in China and emerging markets.
Please remember that the hedge fund managers have been paying a much lower rate since they have been claiming that it' investment return(other people's) and not wages. Just think what they would pay on their millions. There is no such thing as trickle down just trickle up. The middle class and below spend their money , it keeps in circulation. They do not have enough to invest in China and emerging markets.
I usually listen to the news from Washington with half an ear these days, but I perked up when I heard Obama's 2016 budget proposal being described. "Aha, this is why I voted for Obama [twice]!" I thought. All the right issues, all the right moves: economic justice, tax fairness, infrastructure spending and concomitant job creation, etc.
My guess is that now that the president isn't impeded by any upcoming elections, neither in Congress nor his own, he's able to push for everything he really wanted to do all along, what he campaigned for to begin with and why I voted for him. I know his proposals won't all be realized, but I'm gratified to hear they're going to be debated, considered, and voted on.
My guess is that now that the president isn't impeded by any upcoming elections, neither in Congress nor his own, he's able to push for everything he really wanted to do all along, what he campaigned for to begin with and why I voted for him. I know his proposals won't all be realized, but I'm gratified to hear they're going to be debated, considered, and voted on.
1
somebody is right … somebody is flat out wrong … we can continue to deny the truth in simple mathematics .. and frame that discard with grand visions and want to great things …. but somewhere down the line … …. …….
There are still moderate Republicans who grasp the need for responsible governance for the greater good and the need for massive investment in infrastructure, education and economic opportunity and equity for the tens of millions of Americans who have been left behind in the last decades.
What Obama has that most Republicans do not is vision, new ideas and solutions for the twenty-first century, not the twentieth and nineteenth. He's even seen value in a few proposals that intelligent Republicans have made. But he's not going to help the wealthy become more so while the middle and working classes continues to struggle.
His budget proposals will put Republican candidates in the position of either coming up with truly new ideas that could work or more of the same. Expect the latter.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
What Obama has that most Republicans do not is vision, new ideas and solutions for the twenty-first century, not the twentieth and nineteenth. He's even seen value in a few proposals that intelligent Republicans have made. But he's not going to help the wealthy become more so while the middle and working classes continues to struggle.
His budget proposals will put Republican candidates in the position of either coming up with truly new ideas that could work or more of the same. Expect the latter.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
1
President Eisenhower raised the tax on the wealthy to 90% over a certain income to pay the debt of WW2. Well, what is the problem with doing that again for say, 5 years to help get us out of the debt crisis brought about by the Iraq war and new veterans benefits? Our congressional leaders are doing what they always do, playing their smoke and mirror game. Rob the middle class to pay for everything. Now, because we are coming up on the 2016 election all of a sudden both parties care about the middle class.......sure, all we are is a campaign slogan. Besides, does anyone really think that a Bush or a Clinton has any idea of what the "little" people go through or care? When the Clintons paid 1 million dollars for their daughters wedding - in the worst economic down turn since the great depression, for me that was saying loud and clear: LET THEM EAT CAKE. Hillary Rodham Marie Antonetta Clinton and Jeb Louie the XVI Bush. Neither of them get my vote. We need real candidates that truly care about this nation, it's future and its people and not their wealthy donors the Dutch Masters the Kochs, Adelsons, and Soros.
1
Raise taxes, increase borrowing, and continue to spend more then we have. How could this worn out credo possibly be considered visionary? Can we pick just one thing and fix it, before adding any more tax payer funded programs?
7
As usual the MAIN DRIVERS of inflation are made to be Social Security and Medicare. The solution to this problem is to A: Get the cost of medical care cut down to realistic numbers. B: Stop expanding the scope of Social Security. C: lower the tax for S.S. to 5% for Employee and extend the top amount to the first $1,000,000.00. D: Reduce the Employer portion to 5% on the first $500,000.00 of compensation regadless it be salary, dividends, bonus checks. And, before I forget E: have the Congress REPAY the more than two point five trillion dollars that they ahem, choke, gag, BORROWED from the fund, which is not stuck with Congressional I O U,s! Problem solved!
1
nor would he loosen budget controls on military spending without relaxing them for domestic programs.
Liar! Men should pledge themselves to nothing; for reflection makes a liar of their resolution.
Sophocles
Liar! Men should pledge themselves to nothing; for reflection makes a liar of their resolution.
Sophocles
1
What needs to be added in an income tax surcharge of 10% on all but bottom two brackets. Revenue divided between Iraq War debt retirement & infrastructure investment. Financial transaction taxes on derivative trades, all subprime debt securitizations & rental income securitizations, and all HF/HS trades. Revenues split 50:50 between retiring bailout debt incldg stimulus and SS tax reductions AND infrastructure investment.
These stay in place until all the associated debt (incldg interest) are paid off.
Scrap the Cap on SS payroll taxes.
These stay in place until all the associated debt (incldg interest) are paid off.
Scrap the Cap on SS payroll taxes.
2
Until campaign financing is reformed and idiotic laws such as Citizens United are repealed, there will be no true representation of the peoples by the politicians.
Democracy seems to have lost out to ego's and money, public service to self service!
Thanks to Citizen's United people are now at the mercy of corporate whims and their aversion to paying their fair share of taxes, offshore tax havens hide billions of taxable income earned by American corporations, while the average citizen is left to foot the bill financing the upkeep of a nation!
Democracy seems to have lost out to ego's and money, public service to self service!
Thanks to Citizen's United people are now at the mercy of corporate whims and their aversion to paying their fair share of taxes, offshore tax havens hide billions of taxable income earned by American corporations, while the average citizen is left to foot the bill financing the upkeep of a nation!
2
So how did we characterize this government budget as being an austerity budget, especially as compared to what would and has happened with families over the last 6 years, many state governments and any responsible private sector entity? Does anyone believe seriously that these agency budgets aren't padded with lots of fluff? And when was the last time that a program that is widely recognized to be ineffective or way past its relevance has been stopped, the funding reclaimed and repurposed to new priorities? If only this, smarter than most, president had devoted his energies to doing what he promised in 2008 and really lead the administration instead of campaigning, speech making and doing phot ops, we could easily afford the so-called infrastructure investments.
4
John Rawls "Theory of Justice" regarding the redistribution of wealth should become a primer text for the International Monetary Fund's globalized restructuring using Special Drawing Rights which are nothing more than financial engineering device like hedge funds and derivatives. It is important to American prosperity to go well in the "globalization" game. The prosperity of the country depends on us knowing what we are getting into, including complex algorithms and data-mining that are pervading the American economy scene. The founding father's vision was prosperity for all, not some of the people, some of the time. Taxation on those holding 46% of the world's wealth is a step in the right direction toward building unity, equality, social responsibility and an attempt at putting an end of greed.
2
just another brilliant economic move by our professor of finance. In case we needed more proof of his inability to understand simple fiscal tenets, we know have it.
6
Please tell us what your fiscal tenets are. It is basic economics 101, that given the existing economic facts (low inflation, record corporate profit margins, record high stock market, high unemployment, stagnant wages) austerity and a supply side, are exactly the wrong approach. Time to stop with the dogma and think for yourself.
1
"areas of potential compromise that nod to Republican ideas"
We've heard this before. Yet just because they are dealing with Obama, whom they hate, the Repugs won't ever, ever, ever, ever compromise with him. I look forward to two more years of gridlock with the Grand Obstructionist Party digging in its heels.
We've heard this before. Yet just because they are dealing with Obama, whom they hate, the Repugs won't ever, ever, ever, ever compromise with him. I look forward to two more years of gridlock with the Grand Obstructionist Party digging in its heels.
2
Obama has the county firmly on a long term path towards an implosion from debt according to the CBO, CMMS and GAO, as well as numerous private economic research bureaus like NBER. So where is his reform of unsustainable entitlement spending? Why did he completely ignore the recommendations of his own debt commission -- Simpson Boyles? Like all good leftists promoting unsustainable spending, long term consequences be darned, Obama thinks the definition of austerity is the country going bankrupt less faster.
3
In six years the Obama Administration has reduced the budget deficit from an inherited 1.35 trillion to under 500 billion. Go ahead and look it up. When corporate sector profit margins are at a 65 year high, when the stock market is at a record high, when inflation is low, when unemployment is high, and wages have been stagnant. The economy is screaming at you that continuing austerity is a bad idea. Further, for anyone who is serious, there are two ways to cut the deficit, and one of them is to raise revenue.
1
So this is "middle class" economics huh? It's more like "Middle Man" economics with the Government being the middle man.
4
"Middle class economics" is another big promising narrative being promoted by the public relations genius that occupies the Oval Office.
Remember his last big narrative that promised lower health care costs and keeping doctors and plans?
Remember his last big narrative that promised lower health care costs and keeping doctors and plans?
5
Obama has increased the US national debt doubled in just six years - from 9 to 18 trillion dollars. He wants to support the middle class but is planning to expand tax incentives for the unemployed. The same for Corporations. He wants to return the money that they hide from taxation but Big Business supports his programs. His actions are illogical and do not suggest anything positive in the next two years.
7
"...more utopian vision than pragmatic blueprint..."
Really? Those are the choices? Having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization versus dealing with things sensibly, Good grief.
Please stop editorializing in your front-page news stories!
Really? Those are the choices? Having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization versus dealing with things sensibly, Good grief.
Please stop editorializing in your front-page news stories!
If the government wants more revenue (and when does it not want more revenue), then it should get that revenue by putting in place incentives for the private sector to invest, grow, hire people, and as a result of all of that investment and hiring generate more taxes for the government.
Raising tax rates accomplishes the exact opposite - it creates disincentives to risk taking, investment, and hard work.
Instead of Obama's plan what we should do is the following:
1) Eliminate the 15.3 FICA tax. Replace it with a 8.3% national sales tax the revenues of which are dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. This would give everyone who had a job a 7% raise, and make everyone who was not employed 15.3% cheaper to hire.
2) Eliminate the corporate income tax entirely. This would have the effect of making America the best place to start a business, invest in a business and grow a business. It would set off a private sector investment boom in our country.
3) Once corporate income taxes are eliminated, the double taxation of capital gains and dividends is eliminated as well. Then we can settle on a reasonable top income tax rate of 25% for ALL income from ALL sources with no deductions or exemptions for people with over $1M a year in income. This would solve the problem of the Romney's and Buffett's of the world paying lower tax rates than their secretaries.
The above plan would spur growth, close the deficit and make the tax system more fair. Obama's plan does none of these.
Raising tax rates accomplishes the exact opposite - it creates disincentives to risk taking, investment, and hard work.
Instead of Obama's plan what we should do is the following:
1) Eliminate the 15.3 FICA tax. Replace it with a 8.3% national sales tax the revenues of which are dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. This would give everyone who had a job a 7% raise, and make everyone who was not employed 15.3% cheaper to hire.
2) Eliminate the corporate income tax entirely. This would have the effect of making America the best place to start a business, invest in a business and grow a business. It would set off a private sector investment boom in our country.
3) Once corporate income taxes are eliminated, the double taxation of capital gains and dividends is eliminated as well. Then we can settle on a reasonable top income tax rate of 25% for ALL income from ALL sources with no deductions or exemptions for people with over $1M a year in income. This would solve the problem of the Romney's and Buffett's of the world paying lower tax rates than their secretaries.
The above plan would spur growth, close the deficit and make the tax system more fair. Obama's plan does none of these.
3
Firms are not investing and hiring because there is a lack of demand. They are sitting on a couple of trillion in cash for lack of demand. They are borrowing to pay dividends rather than repatriating cash because they can deduct the interest expense.
Get informed. When our economy was doing its best, taxes were higher as under Clinton or better yet Eisenhower.
Get informed. When our economy was doing its best, taxes were higher as under Clinton or better yet Eisenhower.
4
"Raising tax rates accomplishes the exact opposite - it creates disincentives to risk taking, investment, and hard work." .....Not always. There are two sides to the economy, supply and demand. Business can increase by - increasing its profit margin on each individual unit it sells. or by increasing the total number of units it sells. Right now, the corporate sector profit margin is already at its highest level in 65 years, the stock market is at a record high, inflation is low, and wages have been stagnant for several years. Blindly following Republican supply side economics runs contrary to the current economic facts. Raising taxes to support repairing and building infrastructure in our present situation is the correct approach.
Neither Obama nor the Republicans balance the budget in the foreseeable future, so there's not much to choose. I'm disappointed with several aspects of the President's budget: its failure to curtail defense spending (and its enormous waste), its failure to address entitlements (which need to be strengthened and put on a wise fiscal course--we need more taxes for this), and other items. Obama may wear the least dirty shirt (for we can see from Europe that austerity per se has little to recommend it), but that isn't exactly laudable.
More "mindless spending" and more punishment of people who make good decisions.Here's an idea for Obama.We all know that there are some athletes who are too good and win too many matches.How about tying some weights on Serena Williams,so she has less of an advantage in a tennis match?Would go a long way,to equalizing results.
6
What "good" decisions are you speaking of? Countrywide's decision to go with NINJA subprime loans? Goldman Sachs' decision to pack bad loans, bribe S&P to give a triple A rating, sell it to their own customers and bet that they would fail? JPM-C doing the same? AIG using their London office to sell naked CDSs which almost bankrupted them and we had to bail them (and others) to the tune of 189 Billion?
Or Johnson & Johnson, sending metal or metal replacement hips to foreign markets that did not know they were failing catastrophically here and no longer in use.
The list goes on - yes, rewarding bad decisions alright.
Or Johnson & Johnson, sending metal or metal replacement hips to foreign markets that did not know they were failing catastrophically here and no longer in use.
The list goes on - yes, rewarding bad decisions alright.
2
What happens when you send large numbers of jobs overseas to take advantage of lower labor costs. Jobs are lost at home and the profit margin for corporations increases. Basically you are transferring wealth from workers to those who own corporations. Time has come to transfer some of the wealth back by raising taxes on those who have benefitted most from sending jobs overseas and using the money to rebuild our infrastructure. And by the way, everyone benefits from an improved infrastructure.
1
Austerity?!?! The greedy gluttonous out-of-control government is bigger than ever, more powerful than ever, spending more than ever, borrowing more than ever, taking in more tax revenue than ever, and has more control over its subjects lives than ever and this is austerity???????
5
As a "dream sheet," this budget proposal might be okay --- but only if it serves as an opening bargaining position. It doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere unless the House Budget Committee and the OMB can sharpen their pencils and tone down their rhetoric.
Very few budgets in 84 year istory have been balanced /The one in 2919 was balanced: tyhe great depression followed.
Four Bogus Attacks On The Obama Budget, Debunked
http://ourfuture.org/20150203/four-bogus-attacks-on-the-obama-budget-deb...
Four Bogus Attacks On The Obama Budget, Debunked
http://ourfuture.org/20150203/four-bogus-attacks-on-the-obama-budget-deb...
1
This is a chess game, and a good player is always thinking three moves ahead. The media and GOP are constantly stuck on Obama's current move. These "utopian" proposals are creating sound bites and votes for the next few elections. They will be used to define politicians who like to tap dance around the issues. Obama has nothing to lose now. He's using GOP obstruction against them by proposing changes the country needs and the majority favors. In two years and four years, the Democrats will have a mountain of evidence showing how the GOP denied every change needed for the good of the people.
5
The Republicans have resisted everything Obama has proposed (for 'the good of the people', of course) since he took office, and have been rewarded with control of both Houses of Congress. Were all those lost House and Senate seats part of Obama's master game of chess, played three steps ahead?
4
Obama won his second term. Now, I think he has set up a situation to help the Democrats win big in 2016. Definitely a chess move; most probably a winning one.
1
Chess is a good example. Solo player, concerned only with his own game and title.
The problem is politics is a team sport. Just ask all those democrats who lost their seats.
The problem is politics is a team sport. Just ask all those democrats who lost their seats.
2
What austerity. All he knows is how to do is spend, and spend, and spend. Did I mention spend?
4
There is not in reality, in either the US or in Europe, any 'austerity' in practice. Each year, at the U.S. federal level, and at the national level in every major European country, more money - much more money - will be spent in 2015 than in 2014, was much more money was spent in 2014, than in 2013, etc etc. The austerity Krugman and others rail at, simply does not exist.
3
Utopian vision, or fantasy agenda? We will be lucky if we get Congress to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, which a number of business-oriented Republicans (read: not Tea Party whack jobs) have expressed an interest in doing. And maybe, we can get a tax passed on corporate money in overseas accounts when it is brought back home. This one is less likely.
The rest of it is DOA, and probably put out there to make the Republicans look bad before the 2016 Presidential contest, which they will almost certainly lose to Ms. Clinton.
I am declaring Rand Paul DOA for 2016 for his comments about vaccines making people crazy. This was crazy of him to say, and he is now done in by the same sort of ignorant, extremist views his father, Ron, specialized in.
3
Austerity reigns? Every budget, year of spending, Obama has ever had has been a record for spending? Worse, he's increased spending to record levels every year by with massive amounts of Nation Destroying DEBT. Obama has already run up the DEBT more than any other President in U.S. history, and he's on track by the time he leaves office, at current spending levels, to run up more Nation Destroying DEBT than all the rest of the Presidents in U.S. history put together. Meanwhile he's gutting the military and left our nation wide open to Islamic Terrorism, and left China, Russia, and the Iranians free to do as they please. So he's not spending money on keeping us safe. He'd spending massive amounts of money on welfare and Obamastamps, and paying of campaign contributors with things like Solyndra. Worse again, Obama seems determined to tax the so called wealthy which means businesses and the Middle Class until their eyes bleed so he can buy more votes. Congress just needs to say No Thanks!
3
Weisman and Davis have irresponsibly presented Republican talking points as facts. You would never know that Social Security still pays for itself and that the Medicare budget is also partially paid by beneficiaries from the following: "Absent from the plan is any pretense of remaking the main drivers of the long-term debt — Social Security and Medicare . . . such entitlement programs would go from consuming 13.2 percent of the economy this year to 14.8 percent in a decade, while domestic and military programs under Congress’s discretion would shrink to 4.5 percent of the economy in 2025, from the current 6.4 percent." Note how Social Security is supposedly "consuming" the economy. It actually stimulates the economy, because that money all gets spent and multiplies (with a multiplier of 2), while defense money is a dead-end (with a multiplier of less than one).
1
Communicate with your elected officials, especially Senators. Even if they are Joni Ernst or Grassley - call anyway.
1
I have a question! Has anyone seen at least a single Obamas initiative that has been beneficial to the citizens and the country. His words aren't true usually. This is another beautiful promises.
8
GOP should do the same thing the Democrats did. Propose it as is and see how many Democrats will vote for a $2 trillion dollar tax increase.
1
Hold the democrats accountable for the president's actions? Worked well in the last election. Republicans might as well fast-forward to the next, for which the president seems to be campaigning.
1
I find it incredibly discouraging to see that the proposed budget seeks to increase the proportional amount spent on entitlements while decreasing the proportional amount spent on domestic programs, especially to the point where the amount spent on entitlements would be three times what is spent on domestic and military programs. It's especially upsetting when you consider that another article in the paper today discussed the economic benefits of closing the educational gap.
I think the action on immigration was the economically, politically and morally correct move. The same goes the President's action on the environment. But it seems that the President might be overplaying his hand here. Even worse, he's not only failing to fix the ever-growing problem of increasing entitlement spending, he's making the problem worse. Instead of focusing on popular initiatives like infrastructure and education, two issues that the country needs to focus on desperately, the President has decided to play political games that could end up backfiring both politically and economically.
I think the action on immigration was the economically, politically and morally correct move. The same goes the President's action on the environment. But it seems that the President might be overplaying his hand here. Even worse, he's not only failing to fix the ever-growing problem of increasing entitlement spending, he's making the problem worse. Instead of focusing on popular initiatives like infrastructure and education, two issues that the country needs to focus on desperately, the President has decided to play political games that could end up backfiring both politically and economically.
1
Entitlement spending? Do you mean continuing oil, etc depletion allowance tax breaks? Or, massively taxpayer subsidized gross revenue guarantee insurance with no upper limits on payouts or # yrs collecting, substantial fraud and no drug tests for recipients? Or maybe allowing deduction of 100% of HQ overhead costs from domestic revenue when 80% of revenue is parked offshore and untaxed? Or, letting private sector firms acquire taxpayer funded new technology for nothing and not having to pay us royalties.
Where do you think commercial jet planes, solid state electronics, computers, internet, interstate highway system, corp of engineers commercial navigation projects come from. Private sector companies is not the answer.
Where do you think commercial jet planes, solid state electronics, computers, internet, interstate highway system, corp of engineers commercial navigation projects come from. Private sector companies is not the answer.
2
Looking back at the last three Republican presidents who claimed to be "fiscal conservatives" its obvious that fiscal conservatism is randomly applied, usually as a means to thwart an opposition initiative and quickly and unceremoniously ignored to make way for a big juicy tax cut desired by the donor class.
By the same token austerity was rigidly applied by the GOP simply as a mean to slow the economy before the 2012 election. If the American voter went for the bait and Romney had been elected we would be in year three of record deficits and record income growth by the top 1% , twiddling our thumbs waiting for the trickle to begin flowing. For 2016 we can be assured tha austerity will be rolled out like a comfortable sweater, replete with admonitions about the danger to future generations. The solution,? Why, new tax cuts, of course.
By the same token austerity was rigidly applied by the GOP simply as a mean to slow the economy before the 2012 election. If the American voter went for the bait and Romney had been elected we would be in year three of record deficits and record income growth by the top 1% , twiddling our thumbs waiting for the trickle to begin flowing. For 2016 we can be assured tha austerity will be rolled out like a comfortable sweater, replete with admonitions about the danger to future generations. The solution,? Why, new tax cuts, of course.
12
Visionary? If by that you mean looting business and investors more punitively than any Euro-socialist nation. Obama apparently seeks to turn France into a comparative tax haven for American business.
It is too bad that Mr. Obama did not come out of his socialist closet before the 2008 election.
It is too bad that Mr. Obama did not come out of his socialist closet before the 2008 election.
3
"The document is undergirded by two major presidential initiatives that have virtually no chance in Congress: large tax increases on multinational corporations and the rich, and a comprehensive immigration law that would lift the economy with millions of newly legalized, taxpaying workers".
The author is accurate in describing both as non starters but the editorializing about a growth boost from legions of poor, undocumented-illegal- immigrants is beyond the pale. They already consume goods and services, what they will consume next is public services at great taxpayer cost.
Given their average earnings potential, they will not contribute to federal tax receipts much less stmulate growth but will drive transfer payments and deficits.
The author is accurate in describing both as non starters but the editorializing about a growth boost from legions of poor, undocumented-illegal- immigrants is beyond the pale. They already consume goods and services, what they will consume next is public services at great taxpayer cost.
Given their average earnings potential, they will not contribute to federal tax receipts much less stmulate growth but will drive transfer payments and deficits.
2
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for public support - not unemployment, food stamps, rent subsidies, medicaid. They mostly work either for dishonest business people who pay cash under the table or using fake or borrowed SS numbers.
They pay all the ordinary taxes you or I pay - sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes directly as owners or indirectly as renters. They pay income taxes, payroll taxes, etc they just cannot collect on them because they are illegal.
The real takers are the mega financial firms like Goldman Sachs, or multimillionaire farms collecting on massively subsidized gross revenue guarantee insurance with no upper limits, limits on number of years collecting and no drug tests.
Get informed. And if you know people illegal or gaming the system, Turn Them In!
They pay all the ordinary taxes you or I pay - sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes directly as owners or indirectly as renters. They pay income taxes, payroll taxes, etc they just cannot collect on them because they are illegal.
The real takers are the mega financial firms like Goldman Sachs, or multimillionaire farms collecting on massively subsidized gross revenue guarantee insurance with no upper limits, limits on number of years collecting and no drug tests.
Get informed. And if you know people illegal or gaming the system, Turn Them In!
Obama's 2016 Budget is a real ray of hope that the worm has turned. Historically, it does happen: observe the French revolution and FDR's policies and programs. The elite are beginning to notice that they better get in front of the people if they want to lead them. Elizabeth Warren's super popularity has shown them that.
2
You do recall an election held last November, Obama and the Dems got their hats handed to them..
3
Obama takes away from strangers!!!
The poorer classes, with the help of the rich; construction industry, at the expense of corporations hiding abroad and more.
But all this can develop a scandal among the owners of corporations about taxation at 19%; ordinary people will leave their jobs because unemployment benefit $ 3000.
Obama can not solve questions about the economy!
The poorer classes, with the help of the rich; construction industry, at the expense of corporations hiding abroad and more.
But all this can develop a scandal among the owners of corporations about taxation at 19%; ordinary people will leave their jobs because unemployment benefit $ 3000.
Obama can not solve questions about the economy!
1
Why does this administration refuse to provide funds for the much-needed infrastructure upgrade unless they remove an equal amount of money from elsewhere in the economy? Where is the logic? How stupid is that?
And where's the logic in the Republicans' demand that the federal budget be "balanced?" Yes, by all means - let the government issue a certain amount of money into the economy and then turn around and tax it all right back. Oh, and let's make it a Constitutional law! That's how you grow an economy - by taxing back every dollar that's spent. Brilliant.
And where's the logic in the Republicans' demand that the federal budget be "balanced?" Yes, by all means - let the government issue a certain amount of money into the economy and then turn around and tax it all right back. Oh, and let's make it a Constitutional law! That's how you grow an economy - by taxing back every dollar that's spent. Brilliant.
3
Are you willing to have the money removed from the bloated Pentagon budget and transferred to domestic spending?
Money does not need to be removed from the Pentagon budget to "pay for" domestic spending. Reducing or increasing defense spending has no relationship whatsoever to the amount of money they allocate to domestic spending. This administration (as with previous ones) is determined to make us believe that our monetarily sovereign government somehow cannot "afford" to allocate infrastructure funds unless they remove the money from somewhere or someone else. Untrue.
3
He's all about rhetoric. A Wall Street and corporate puppet. I prefer Nixon.
2
He (and the USA) could save further $-billions if they would just keep their interfering noses out of other parts of the world: creating conflict in the name of democracy, rather than diffusing it.
Austerity?!! The debt has tripled since Obama came to DC. We print over a billion dollars a day, out of thin air! Under what definition has the US practiced austerity?!
We subsidize farming, oil, flimsy energy companies.
We tax the heck out of the rich and have done nothing to simplify the tax code.
We paid people to buy houses under 'first time home buyers' (even if it wasnt the first time you were buying)
we paid people to trade in perfectly good vehicles under some delusional idea that we'd reduce the carbon footprint
we subsidize ethanol production even though it increases the carbon footprint (and hurts engine performance for some cars)
we extended the unemployment payments, we expanded the number of people eligible for Medicaid, SNAP, welfare, and aid to dependant children,
we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reach out and navigate citizens to government 'free' or subsidized programs, including healthcare,
we increased the number of government agencies by OVER 100, we've increased the number of federal employees and contractors (as well as their salaries and pensions)
We've kept the interest rate near zero for 6 years
... there are thousands of more examples that show we've been on a spending binge. We were all told that this spending would increase jobs and get us out of a recession. We have been spending for over 6 years now; even Keynes said that spending during a recession, while good, must be short term (2-3 years).
We subsidize farming, oil, flimsy energy companies.
We tax the heck out of the rich and have done nothing to simplify the tax code.
We paid people to buy houses under 'first time home buyers' (even if it wasnt the first time you were buying)
we paid people to trade in perfectly good vehicles under some delusional idea that we'd reduce the carbon footprint
we subsidize ethanol production even though it increases the carbon footprint (and hurts engine performance for some cars)
we extended the unemployment payments, we expanded the number of people eligible for Medicaid, SNAP, welfare, and aid to dependant children,
we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reach out and navigate citizens to government 'free' or subsidized programs, including healthcare,
we increased the number of government agencies by OVER 100, we've increased the number of federal employees and contractors (as well as their salaries and pensions)
We've kept the interest rate near zero for 6 years
... there are thousands of more examples that show we've been on a spending binge. We were all told that this spending would increase jobs and get us out of a recession. We have been spending for over 6 years now; even Keynes said that spending during a recession, while good, must be short term (2-3 years).
10
We tax the rich too much? 55% of americans believe that we don't tax the rich enough. http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/pf/taxes/top-1-poll/
We pay people to buy houses under the 'first time home buyers'? When people are homeless it helps when houses are cheaper, especially when they have lost their homes to the financial crisis.
We have increased the number of government jobs? Yeah, because people without jobs definitely help the economy.
I could go on but it seems like you don't really know what you are talking about. The government is spending so that people can support themselves again and get the economy back on track.
We pay people to buy houses under the 'first time home buyers'? When people are homeless it helps when houses are cheaper, especially when they have lost their homes to the financial crisis.
We have increased the number of government jobs? Yeah, because people without jobs definitely help the economy.
I could go on but it seems like you don't really know what you are talking about. The government is spending so that people can support themselves again and get the economy back on track.
1
Government spending doesn't create anything. Every time government spends, it takes from a productive segment of the economy.
1
Number of government employees is at its lowest in decades, same for military.
Government agencies added is 1 (Consumer Financial Protection Agency).
You do remember the damage the republican party inflicted financial meltdown and 100's of billions spent bailing the financial industry out.
Natl debt increased under Reagan, Bush41 & Bush43 - financial disaster required unusual action and if anything Obama was wimpy thanks to that incompetent jerk Larry Summers.
Debt has not tripled - it was over 10 Trillion when Bush43 left office and much of the increase over the past six years is a direct result of Bush43's tax cuts and unfunded wars, unfunded medicare programs - drug plan & medicare advantage subsidies, and financial industry subsidies and bailouts began under Bush43.
Oh, cuts in IRS budget and focus away fron enforcement we have left an average of 350 Billion/yr uncollected or 5.6 Trillion uncollected from tax cheats mostly business people.
Get informed before putting pinkies to keyboard.
Government agencies added is 1 (Consumer Financial Protection Agency).
You do remember the damage the republican party inflicted financial meltdown and 100's of billions spent bailing the financial industry out.
Natl debt increased under Reagan, Bush41 & Bush43 - financial disaster required unusual action and if anything Obama was wimpy thanks to that incompetent jerk Larry Summers.
Debt has not tripled - it was over 10 Trillion when Bush43 left office and much of the increase over the past six years is a direct result of Bush43's tax cuts and unfunded wars, unfunded medicare programs - drug plan & medicare advantage subsidies, and financial industry subsidies and bailouts began under Bush43.
Oh, cuts in IRS budget and focus away fron enforcement we have left an average of 350 Billion/yr uncollected or 5.6 Trillion uncollected from tax cheats mostly business people.
Get informed before putting pinkies to keyboard.
Look. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the very states who live most off the so-called liberal states are the ones raking in the most in federal tax revenues. This isn't about wealth redistribution at all. It's about hanging on for dear life to the Gravy Train these red states have gotten all too comfortable having blue states fund.
All anyone needs to do to prove the sabotage by these red states is to look at how much in subsidies they take out of the federal kitty for their relic industries that decades ago would have gone bust if not for tens of billions in tax subsidies.
What's really behind the GOP today is creating a massive cultural war between the states they believe are "elite" blue states and their so-called "common sense" "traditional values" red states.
The reality is that blue states do all of the bailing out and have since the Civil War days when our states had to pay for the damages of hideous southerners who thought fighting for "states" rights to keep and own free slave laborers was their privilege.
Then came the blue states bailing out the midwest that suffered the greatest losses in the Great Depression. Now, they call creating jobs "socialism" just not when FDR created the New Deal that put them all back to work.
But no. that wasn't enough bail out. Onto bailouts for the Dust Bowl the midwestern red states created through their own stupidity and not realizing you can overproduce farm products without depleting the soil. Enough!
All anyone needs to do to prove the sabotage by these red states is to look at how much in subsidies they take out of the federal kitty for their relic industries that decades ago would have gone bust if not for tens of billions in tax subsidies.
What's really behind the GOP today is creating a massive cultural war between the states they believe are "elite" blue states and their so-called "common sense" "traditional values" red states.
The reality is that blue states do all of the bailing out and have since the Civil War days when our states had to pay for the damages of hideous southerners who thought fighting for "states" rights to keep and own free slave laborers was their privilege.
Then came the blue states bailing out the midwest that suffered the greatest losses in the Great Depression. Now, they call creating jobs "socialism" just not when FDR created the New Deal that put them all back to work.
But no. that wasn't enough bail out. Onto bailouts for the Dust Bowl the midwestern red states created through their own stupidity and not realizing you can overproduce farm products without depleting the soil. Enough!
16
Only in DC (and with the NYT editorial board) is something less than $4 trillion seen as “austerity”. This will not correct until the voting public refuses to endorse, subscribe to, and vote for any incumbent on the national scene.
4
At this point I am almost desperate. I don't want to sound too pessimistic but for me a breakdown in American government is clear.
First - current government has pushed us towards the socialist morass as close as it even possible for the US. That would be still acceptable if not for the second - there is no man who would be able to successfully cope with the US problems created by Obama's administration.
First - current government has pushed us towards the socialist morass as close as it even possible for the US. That would be still acceptable if not for the second - there is no man who would be able to successfully cope with the US problems created by Obama's administration.
3
In a free country government takes its orders from the society. It does not try to remake society according to some plan. Hitler had a plan for his society as did Stalin. Our Founding Fathers had a plan for liberty where we were all free to make ourselves.
2
Mr. Obama and the NY Times as always have it backwards. In quoting Mr. Obama: "..time had come to loosen the strictures of austerity to invest in the nation’s future..." you all miss the point. The US Government does not invest in anything, the US government facilitates the functionality of private enterprise and private enterprise does the investing.
Using rebuilding a bridge as an example, it is the fundamental responsibility of government to insure that such infrastructure elements are in place so that private enterprise can easily function so that private enterprise can optimize a return on capital buy itself investing in businesses as it sees fit.
It is wrong to create any image that any government does any investing.
Meanwhile, the question is, what happened to the gasoline taxes that were levied and collected for decades, put into the transportation trust fund?
Those silly rascals that we elected raided the transportation trust fund and now they are calling our attention to the very crisis that they have created as an excuse for... wait, you guessed it: MORE TAXES!
The audacity of government.
Using rebuilding a bridge as an example, it is the fundamental responsibility of government to insure that such infrastructure elements are in place so that private enterprise can easily function so that private enterprise can optimize a return on capital buy itself investing in businesses as it sees fit.
It is wrong to create any image that any government does any investing.
Meanwhile, the question is, what happened to the gasoline taxes that were levied and collected for decades, put into the transportation trust fund?
Those silly rascals that we elected raided the transportation trust fund and now they are calling our attention to the very crisis that they have created as an excuse for... wait, you guessed it: MORE TAXES!
The audacity of government.
2
Jurgen - you neef to read the entreprenurial nation. Where do you think commercial jet airplanes came from? Interstate Highway system? Corps of engineers navigation and flood control systems, computers, computer languages, solid state physics based industries, medical advances at all levels, internet? All based on R&D, DT&E and implementation by DOD, NASA, NOAA, NIH, Corp of Engineers, GI bill, etc.
Anything but Paul Ryan's Dynamic Scoring, which is what Ronald Reagan referred to during the 1980 Presidential Debates, between him and George H,W. Bush, as trickle-down economics. But, whatever you call it, trickle-down is just an unproven myth, without any statistical proof of it ever having been successful. Certainly not in Kansas, and not in Europe! George H.W. Bush nailed it, calling it Voodoo Economics.
So, if President Barack Obama's Budget Plan starts a negotiation where he can give a little to get a little, that would be a success. Unfortunately, for the past six years, the GOP has wanted to take, take, take, but they were never ready to give, even a little.
They are good at negative sales gimmicks, rhetoric and sound bites; however, when it comes to common sense legislation--for the country--they seem to be lost in a fog. By the way, both Obamacare and Obamanomics have indeed been working
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
So, if President Barack Obama's Budget Plan starts a negotiation where he can give a little to get a little, that would be a success. Unfortunately, for the past six years, the GOP has wanted to take, take, take, but they were never ready to give, even a little.
They are good at negative sales gimmicks, rhetoric and sound bites; however, when it comes to common sense legislation--for the country--they seem to be lost in a fog. By the way, both Obamacare and Obamanomics have indeed been working
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
Not for me. Having a hard time finding a decent doctor with my Obamacare policy. Prefer my previous policy that was canceled thanks to Obamacare.
3
Why is it that we have no problem taking a mortgage out that is more than five times our annual income, but the government insists that it not be able to take a mortgage out to make the house (the USA) better, that it is best to let the house run down and fall apart rather than take out a mortgage that is only 76% of national income?
1
Because our annual income as individuals is more than twice to three times our annual mortgage payment. If it were not, we couldn't get the mortgage. USA runs a deficit annually. In other words, we have to Balance the Budget.
2
The mortgage is paid off at the appointed time, correct? Perhaps you can explain to me when the US will be able to pay off its debt.
1
Austerity, borrowing and spending 8 Trillion. By the end of this particularly reckless President's term, the debt will double. The guy before him did little better. Must require a refined grasp of higher math and economics.
Speaking like patriots, the political elite royalty buy the vote of the ignorant spoiled Selfie voter.
The minds of children. It will not turn out well for you.
Speaking like patriots, the political elite royalty buy the vote of the ignorant spoiled Selfie voter.
The minds of children. It will not turn out well for you.
4
When republicans took over in 2001, we were running surpluses and on a path to retire debt more than doubled under Reagan & Bush41. Ill advised tax cuts, unpaid for and unneeded war in Iraq, unpaid for medicare drug plan and advantage subsidies destroyed any chance of reducing debt and infact doubled it to 10 trillion.
Yes - republican trickle down, voodoo economics has been so successful.
Yes - republican trickle down, voodoo economics has been so successful.
Would someone take the checkbook away from this guy, PLEASE? If this is the way he spends our money I would hate to see his personal finances.
3
When President Obama speaks boldly for all Americans, his popularity rises, more Americans listen, and the "majority Congress" falls over each other waving flags for the 1% and ignoring everyone else. The meme of the sky falling for the rich is landing on both deaf ears now.
The GOP may have Congress, but we have a President who does not owe his life to the Koch machine. Our neighborhoods need each other all across this nation.
Step up and govern for all of us or leave town. It can be done.
The GOP may have Congress, but we have a President who does not owe his life to the Koch machine. Our neighborhoods need each other all across this nation.
Step up and govern for all of us or leave town. It can be done.
4
"Never balances the budget, ever". Come on, Mitch, you voted for the tax cuts that broke the bank. We had a surplus. And we can have one again, but your buddies like the Kochs should payback some of what they have looted from ordinary Americans. While we're at it, get rid of the cap on Social Security for wealthy earners, a break they don't deserve, and keep it on solid ground.
3
When someone in a powerful Postion such as Mitch McConnel refers to pwerful Poltical Bosses on the Left, - is he supposedly trying to draw attention away from his own Parties Poltical Bosses on the Right? It seems to me that the Party in Power on the right should BEGIN NOW, - to address a decades long discussion, (with very litte attention by either Party, - except some talk which never truly addresses it), in earnest, about TAX REFORM. The Tax Code that has been tweaked for years with the addition of Loopholes is, not been addressed since 1993 and can not be clearly understood by any CPA in America. By closing some ridiculous Loop Holes alone would generate a very large increase in Treasury Revenue that just might allow for some lower Taxes by Corporations, and the squeezed Middle Class, and allow infrastructer projects that have long been needed, - to begin! JOBS ANYONE?
1
Actually tax evasion has cost the country 350 - 400 Billion a year since Bush43 took office. that is in the 5.6 Trillion over the last 14 years.
it's not "austerity" people, that is a false prop to debate against. It's "fiscal discipline" just like you have to practice in your home. We need more of it, not less. None of us got a 7% raise this year. Obama's economy is strong, unemployment nearing record low, stock market at record high, Al Qaeda is decimated and a non-factor worldwide. Why does the Obama administration need a 7% increase in spending ? ? ?
1
The main reason OBAMA was able to claim the deficit had been reduced was the fact that Republicans during Gov. Shut down / sequestration had passed cuts to federal budgets
Now OBAMA wants to ignore... Typical of him agree to one thing then go back on the agreement
Our deficit will skyrocket if ever interest rates on lending to fund US budget ever go up
Less is more and OBAMA should be held to account for his bloated ambitions
His main job is to keep US safe... Thus funding military a necessity but he wants $$$ to support all the illegals he has brought into this country... This should be a resounding NO
No other country in the World allows this influx of illegals to happen
Now OBAMA wants to ignore... Typical of him agree to one thing then go back on the agreement
Our deficit will skyrocket if ever interest rates on lending to fund US budget ever go up
Less is more and OBAMA should be held to account for his bloated ambitions
His main job is to keep US safe... Thus funding military a necessity but he wants $$$ to support all the illegals he has brought into this country... This should be a resounding NO
No other country in the World allows this influx of illegals to happen
3
Imagine…People compromising over this one.
Hope it isn't utopian to imagine, but if it is so be it…I prefer it to the hopelessness our Congress has engendered.
Hope it isn't utopian to imagine, but if it is so be it…I prefer it to the hopelessness our Congress has engendered.
Lots to take issue with in this column's interpretations but I'll just point out one.
The Social Security/Medicare problem is a "crisis" manufactured by Congress years ago when it moved those earned benefits into general revenue vs. separate "sequestered" funds. Then a succession of Congresses and Administrations cut taxes, subsidized offshoring, engaged in wars they lied us into with no oversight on Pentagon waste and turned over the economy to Wall Street.
The fix for the Social Security/Medicare funding is simple and has been proposed many times: raise the ceiling on earned income. Problem solved.
The Social Security/Medicare problem is a "crisis" manufactured by Congress years ago when it moved those earned benefits into general revenue vs. separate "sequestered" funds. Then a succession of Congresses and Administrations cut taxes, subsidized offshoring, engaged in wars they lied us into with no oversight on Pentagon waste and turned over the economy to Wall Street.
The fix for the Social Security/Medicare funding is simple and has been proposed many times: raise the ceiling on earned income. Problem solved.
15
As long as 1+1=2, Social Security is doomed. It is a Ponzi scheme, paying current benefits not from an increase in asset value but from incoming taxes. This is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Taking in more money will only lead to paying out more; if you're going to tax someone based on a $10 million/year income then surely you'll pay benefits based on a $10 million/year income, correct? Because the number of workers supporting each retiree is and will continue to shrink, the inflow is shrinking and the outflow is growing, without an increase in asset value to support more outflow. This is recipe for failure. You calls for higher taxes is exactly what Madoff did when his Ponzi scheme was collapsing. the result will be the same
2
Nonsense. Proportional pay out is exactly what we have now with a cap on that payout. But if there's additional ways to protect what should be DEDICATED funds for EARNED BENEFITS, by all means let's hear them. A root cause of the projected problems with payouts is what I referred to.The use of current SS/Medicare taxes to help pay for oh, let's say, the longest war in American history with NO tax increases to pay for the trillions in debt THAT has incurred. And that's just one example.
Though it's about humanity, tax benefits for poor families will displease other layers of society. Our authorities just encourage their laziness as the majority of so-called poor families are workable people, who simply don't want work.
2
Earned income tax credit was Reagan's one good thing and assembled by that conservative economic icon Prof. Friedman.
Things that have no basis in reality have zero chance of getting done. The next time someone complains that "nothing gets done", he should look directly at the president's budget and to all his many proposals.
The president obviously enjoys living in his own "narrative".
The president obviously enjoys living in his own "narrative".
3
Remember our splendid little war in Iraq. It is estimated to have cost about
$3,000,000,000,000( trillion) and we didn't even get our candy and flowers yet.
$3,000,000,000,000( trillion) and we didn't even get our candy and flowers yet.
7
By what mental gymnastics did the past four years reveal "austerity" in fedral spending?
10
AUSTERITY?!?
The federal budget is UP 122% since 2000, MORE THAN DOUBLE!
People's income did NOT double, and even worse, those WORKING are the SAME NUMBER as 2007 - with 2 MILLION LESS FULL TIME JOBS!
It IS this "budget" that is breaking the economic back of this country - as almost 50% do NOTHING but TAKE from those that actually want the American dream.
The federal budget is UP 122% since 2000, MORE THAN DOUBLE!
People's income did NOT double, and even worse, those WORKING are the SAME NUMBER as 2007 - with 2 MILLION LESS FULL TIME JOBS!
It IS this "budget" that is breaking the economic back of this country - as almost 50% do NOTHING but TAKE from those that actually want the American dream.
9
Creating jobs for the future, what jobs? Mechanical robot tasks like picking fruit or moving a hospital patient will be solved. Once computers/robots get to a level of capability where seeing and moving is easy for them then they will be used very extensively." "There will be more progress [re: robotics] in the next 30 years than ever,"
1
If we fail to address the crumbling infrastructure and the crumbling middle class, we will suffer for generations to come.
Congress and Mr President, its time to forget about your base and the next election and COMPROMISE!
Congress and Mr President, its time to forget about your base and the next election and COMPROMISE!
2
The cross-the-board sequester was the result of the Congress and the President not being able to identify any items of discretionary spending that could be cut, with nine months of study. There is no need for the sequester to remain if spending reductions can be identified. Federal spending continues to climb, even with the sequester, so characterizing it as austerity is fraudulent.
7
A utopian vision is exactly what this is, as stated by the author. Why bother Mr. President? I can't remember the specific year but the senate brought one of his budgets up for a direct vote and it lost 99-0. We need leadership not narcissistic frivolity. It is sad that the American people have to put up with these shenanigans as this budget isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
11
You don't get it. This budget is about agenda setting. Of course Republicans are going to continue assisting corporations to dodge taxes, for example, but whether that is politically advisable in an environment where issues of economic fairness are looming ever larger and there are urgent national priorities like infrastructure improvement is perhaps another matter. The budget btw reduces the deficit.
2
Sad but well deserved. Like with Bush the American people voted for this man twice.And many still don't realize they have been taken.
1
Hey John. It's time for a little honesty here. Just WHO is assisting corporations? How much money did Dems get from Wall Street and corps.? The budget does not reduce the debt, and the debt is what matters. Adding money out of thin air and then claiming it reduces the deficit is a sham at best.
1
Dear Americans:
Concerning the social contract you entered into in 1776, well your government hasn't keep their side of the bargain! It's time to dissolve it completely and start over. Good Luck!
Concerning the social contract you entered into in 1776, well your government hasn't keep their side of the bargain! It's time to dissolve it completely and start over. Good Luck!
2
Taxation and spending is the flywheel that keeps the rest of the economy spinning. When you spend smarter, you'll be happier. When you spend less, you'll be poorer.
2
"Spending smarter" could also mean eliminating wasteful spending as well eliminating fraud in entitlement programs,which probably runs into the tens of billions of dollars.
2
Too many congressional Republicans confuse negotiation with surrender. Every time they whine about how much Obama is not 'bargaining in good faith' it is because he is representing the views of those who elected him. Republicans want unconditional surrender as terms for beginning negotiation. Problem is, Obama let them get away with it for too long. "Not a serious proposal' means it is not purely a Conservative document and that it reflects the priorities of the Progressive half of the country. We may have been trounced in 2014 but we did win the Presidency twice. The assertions by Republicans that the vast majority of Americans are extreme Right Wingers is just not born out by National elections. If Republicans were to admit they are a large minority it would upset their ideology so....
5
Political "surrender" to a liberal means to sacrifice your principles. Pres. Obama has not compromised his liberal principles in six years. He might want to try it for the good of the country, especially for the poor who have gotten poorer and for the black communities, which have crumbled further during the Obama administration.
3
Ummm, let's see: The President says, Pass what you want and I don't want and I'll veto it. He says, Don't pass what I want, and I'll get out my pen and write it into law. So the only reasonable position for Republicans to take is to like whatever the President likes. How could they confuse this position with surrender?
1
I think that the Mr Obama's Budget speech is the follow up of his State of the Union speech.
In both he is following the “Inclusive Capitalism” principles, which say that the 4th layer (the workers) are potential internal consumers if they will reach a decent wage.
So I would not underestimate his words, which are valid for the USA economical growth, if the Republican will understand, as well for the Greek socioeconomic emergency, if Germany will be more open minded.
In both he is following the “Inclusive Capitalism” principles, which say that the 4th layer (the workers) are potential internal consumers if they will reach a decent wage.
So I would not underestimate his words, which are valid for the USA economical growth, if the Republican will understand, as well for the Greek socioeconomic emergency, if Germany will be more open minded.
4
If Obama wants to raise taxes, pay on what the Federal Government already has!! Tax and spend is not happening. $20 Trillion in Debt by 2017. Social Security Programs are running out of money. For example, Disability. Interest Only Payments are over $200 Billion a year. Not a dime in the coffers for emergency disasters.
3
Have these folks in Washington ever heard of the words "Balanced Budget"? Seems to be a foreign concept to them. What's another $Trillion each year?
4
Balanced budget not a good idea during recession. The economic engine needs to be primed and the resultant economic expansion will generate more tax revenues. Then your darling budget may be enhanced. My vie system prioritizes people over property.
I am a Republican and spend much of my time on these forums on diatribes. However, I have to admit: the president is reaching out to Republicans here through more than just "tokens." He's addressing the most serious Republican voices, those of Rand Paul and Paul Ryan - who, on the economic issues on which he's following their lead, are no moderates, by the way. He's basically accepting their ideas and incorporating them almost wholesale into his budget. If there were a time for Republicans to give an Obama budget a serious chance, this is it.
7
"Obama’s Budget Seeks to Loosen Austerity Reins". What happened to :
" I will cut the deficit in a half by the end of my first term" ?
The proposed budget plans to add to the deficit which has been steadily growing
for the last 6 years, contrary to lofty assurances. Is this 0bama's "new" plan ?
It has not worked for fundamental economic reasons so we are supposed to
try some more of the same?
Is this an attempt to duplicate what the Greeks have been doing and pin our
economy to the floor for decades ? It is a dismal recovery if there are fewer
people working today than there were in 2009.
" I will cut the deficit in a half by the end of my first term" ?
The proposed budget plans to add to the deficit which has been steadily growing
for the last 6 years, contrary to lofty assurances. Is this 0bama's "new" plan ?
It has not worked for fundamental economic reasons so we are supposed to
try some more of the same?
Is this an attempt to duplicate what the Greeks have been doing and pin our
economy to the floor for decades ? It is a dismal recovery if there are fewer
people working today than there were in 2009.
9
In 2009, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion. In 2014, it was $483 billion.
1
Waclaw,
You have confused deficit with debt. The deficit has been reduced over the past few years but the debt continues to climb. The sequestration is probably the reason for the decreases in the deficit.The president wants to eliminate the sequestration but as a result the deficit will probably begin to increase again and along with the debt.
You have confused deficit with debt. The deficit has been reduced over the past few years but the debt continues to climb. The sequestration is probably the reason for the decreases in the deficit.The president wants to eliminate the sequestration but as a result the deficit will probably begin to increase again and along with the debt.
1
I think you confuse the debt with the deficit. While tied loosely together, they are different.
1
It's going to be a long two years until President Jeb Bush backed by super GOP majorities in Congress produces a responsible budget that doesn't gouge the American people and keeps government spending under control.
5
Because 2001-2008 were such examples of restraint.
1
Nice, very nice. At last. At last a progressive budget, turned towards the future, reducing inequality, while augmenting opportunity for all, and thus improving both society and economy. We little people can dream again.
Question: why was not this proposed when "Democrats" controlled Congress, say six years ago? Because then it could have passed? Fortunately, it was not presented, so it did not pass, and now plutocrats are richer, and more splendid than ever. They will be happy to reward Obama and his collaborators handsomely, with very nice tips.
Better: Obama can now safely pose as a great progressive, giving a chance to the next fake progressive sponsored by plutocracy through the "Democratic" Party, to come up with more smoke and mirrors.
Question: why was not this proposed when "Democrats" controlled Congress, say six years ago? Because then it could have passed? Fortunately, it was not presented, so it did not pass, and now plutocrats are richer, and more splendid than ever. They will be happy to reward Obama and his collaborators handsomely, with very nice tips.
Better: Obama can now safely pose as a great progressive, giving a chance to the next fake progressive sponsored by plutocracy through the "Democratic" Party, to come up with more smoke and mirrors.
4
Obama seems to be unaware that his party was trounced in the last election.
America does not want more government spending, regulations and higher taxes.
America does not want more government spending, regulations and higher taxes.
13
I can't speak for America as you do, but I surely would like to see more government spending on infrastructure, transportation and safety regulations. Crowded planes, lack of train transportation, poor working conditions - who is supposed to pay for their improvement?
Other countries have constitutional authority where the citizens dissolve the government, why do the American people tolerate this dysfunctional government, dissolve it!
5
We're not a paliamentary system, although I like your idea a lot.
1
The only one who is out-of-step is the President.
7
Obama offering to allow wealthy corporations -- who've already proven they are willing to evade corporate income taxes by moving jobs offshore and using various tax loophole money moving tricks -- to allow these same corporations to now bring their offshore profits back to the US without paying the full US corporate tax rate would simply be inviting them to move even more jobs offshore. And pursue even more tax evasion tricks.
Further proof Mr. Obama's hidden agenda from day one is to be an advocate for the wealthiest 1% of American families and corporations. Face the facts 99%'ers. Nobody -- not a single DC politician -- is advocating for you.
Further proof Mr. Obama's hidden agenda from day one is to be an advocate for the wealthiest 1% of American families and corporations. Face the facts 99%'ers. Nobody -- not a single DC politician -- is advocating for you.
9
"An additional $238 billion would come from the one-time surge of taxes as corporations are forced to pay 14 percent on profits now parked abroad."
How many times do they expect us to be fooled by this. Corporations like Apple, Amazon, etc. have been parking their "profits" overseas for years. Once they got a grace period and brought money home at a bargain tax rate that did nothing for our economy. Now they expect it again and then the cycle begins all over again.
How many times do they expect us to be fooled by this. Corporations like Apple, Amazon, etc. have been parking their "profits" overseas for years. Once they got a grace period and brought money home at a bargain tax rate that did nothing for our economy. Now they expect it again and then the cycle begins all over again.
6
These corporations pay out the repatriated profits to executives and shareholders, who then pay more tax themselves.
3
Wow, when did they remake "Fantasy Island" because that is the only place this budget gets passed.
10
It is not going to happen. We have reached the point in our country where both sides will no longer talk to one another over something important unless they expect to win, and cram the other guy's face in the dirt in the process. Call it a "winner take all mentality".....like in Iraq or other areas in the Mideast.... And it has worked so well for them. I think we, as a nation, will have a lovely future 100 years...... Glad I won't see much of it.
1
Austerity? Where lies the mythical austerity? Show me a fed program that is not massively greater than 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Let's be clear, the federal chunk of GDP is still near peak levels rarely seen except for during WW II. Centralized government experiments have historically always failed, in Russia, China, and recently Venezuela. Yikes!
Taxing foreign profits of US corporations sounds fair; except that it will merely drive more to domicile in other nations. ouch.
Taxing foreign profits of US corporations sounds fair; except that it will merely drive more to domicile in other nations. ouch.
11
I suggest you review economic history from 1980 to the present and see how federal government spending has actually "increased." Then look at defense spending, and of course our (off the books) adventures in Iraq. Then do a little arithmetic as to where money is actually being poured.
3
You will only cut the GDP by the amount you cut spending.
The Defense Department has added thousands of employees during this administration. Starting with fewer than a dozen $100K employees six years ago there are now over 1000 of them. The civilian component of the Air Force is now equal to the combined Air Force, Air Force reserve and Air National Guard. But we must cut the pay of military personnel and force Commissioned Officers ( Mustangers) to retire at their last held Enlisted pay rate?
Except for the rich, who in their right mind would be against raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to help address increasing wealth disparity??
4
People who work for corporations may not be too happy about higher taxes on corporations.
3
Who in their right mind believes taxing the rich will solve the increasing wealth disparity?
Eventually the rich won't have any $ either. Then what?
I seriously doubt you thought about that.
Eventually the rich won't have any $ either. Then what?
I seriously doubt you thought about that.
I'd be for cutting corporate taxes and linking it to job creation -- not just giving more to the federal government. The measure should be to induce corporations to create decently paying jobs and for training.
1
The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.
We went into debt in order to give tax breaks to the top oligarchs of government-sponsored capitalism, so now we need to tax those oligarchs to pay the debt and interest created by their past tax breaks.
We went into debt in order to give tax breaks to the top oligarchs of government-sponsored capitalism, so now we need to tax those oligarchs to pay the debt and interest created by their past tax breaks.
4
How is it that thr Declaration of Independence consign certain unalienable rights, including "life," to every American, and corporations like Walmart and McDonalds get away with paying less than a living wage?
3
Conservatives/corporations have contempt for the American social contract per the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.
1
Because that's what politicians set-up.
2
The Declaration of Independence is only a letter of intent without any force of law.
In theory our government is a compact we made to pursue happiness. Are we having fun yet?
In theory our government is a compact we made to pursue happiness. Are we having fun yet?
Although it's inherently regressive, we desperately need a large gas tax increase to help fund our decaying infrastructure repair. What an opportunity we have with insanely low prices now! Do we want more gas guzzling pickups or gas sipping hybrids? On a side note, I wonder why diesel prices have stayed high while gas prices have dropped. It now costs a buck a gallon more to buy fuel for an efficient diesel car -- punishment for going green!
2
Diesel is also used to heat homes as well as fuel for the big rigs that transport goods from place to place. That's why it hasn't come down yet.
Rather than a groovy "visionary Utopian" budget, why doesn't the President send a realistic budget? I wish I could operate my household budget on vision and Utopianism. In other words a blank check. I realize the liberals desire such a budget, but I say to them, pay for your whacked out nonsense yourself. I believe the liberals who live in the rarified world of the 1% should pay a hefty portion of their income to pay for their championed social and environmental programs. Yes, a "liberal tax." I also believe they need to get out and rub elbows on a daily basis with normal people who go to work each day to make an honest living. And by a honest living, I mean breaking a sweat, not the phony sweat in an air conditioned gym, but an honest sweat from physical work. One day, when the working and middle classes finally grow tired of being bullied by the 1% things will change, the wealth of the idle rich will be seized and redistributed, and the 1% will be "reeducated" to know what it means to actually work for a living.
7
Southern Boy Spring Hill, TN
Rather than a groovy "visionary Utopian" budget, why doesn't the President send a realistic budget?
***
When's the last time this president has done something "realistic"? Realistic would actually get deals done. He's not interested in those terms.
Rather than a groovy "visionary Utopian" budget, why doesn't the President send a realistic budget?
***
When's the last time this president has done something "realistic"? Realistic would actually get deals done. He's not interested in those terms.
2
Interesting to compare the Jonathan Weisman article on Paul Ryan - this one dovetails rather nicely. In fact, large portions of it appears to be lifted directly from Paul Ryan:
-describes a standard Democratic budget as "utopian" - no, utopian would be a statement along the lines of the new finance minister of Greece, who has publicly declared his intention to destroy the oligarchs.
-describes any increase in taxes as "large tax increases," regardless of how much smaller they would still be than American taxes in the 1950's
-calls Social Security and Medicare the main drivers of the debt, and undealt with. By law Social Security can NOT contribute to the debt, and a slowing rate of health care cost growth has already shrunk the (largely fantasy anyway) projected future cost of Medicare
-unironically quotes a Republican calling the President's budget proposal "not serious" - this from the same party that endorsed Ryan's magic asterix budget
-unironically again quotes Republicans calling the proposal "not serious" for not endorsing austerity - this after the whole world has seen the practical impact of austerity
-describes a standard Democratic budget as "utopian" - no, utopian would be a statement along the lines of the new finance minister of Greece, who has publicly declared his intention to destroy the oligarchs.
-describes any increase in taxes as "large tax increases," regardless of how much smaller they would still be than American taxes in the 1950's
-calls Social Security and Medicare the main drivers of the debt, and undealt with. By law Social Security can NOT contribute to the debt, and a slowing rate of health care cost growth has already shrunk the (largely fantasy anyway) projected future cost of Medicare
-unironically quotes a Republican calling the President's budget proposal "not serious" - this from the same party that endorsed Ryan's magic asterix budget
-unironically again quotes Republicans calling the proposal "not serious" for not endorsing austerity - this after the whole world has seen the practical impact of austerity
4
Over 50% of Medicare is paid out of general funds rather than from the trust funds or premiums. Federal spending has increased under "austerity", so it's a strange description.
Paul Ryan is humiliating himself reacting to this budget. His lies about what the proposed budget would or wouldn't do are the worst in a career of lying. misogyny, take-aways from the needy, lowering taxes for his wealthy sponsors--Adelson, Koch brothers--these are things Ryan believes in. He is the worst failure since his home boy Joe McCarthy.
4
The Populations is growing so the budget TOO.
Lift the economic EMBARGO against Cuba.
Start negotiations with Russia.
Ingress heavy manufacture WITH south America.
STOP freaking ingress solar wind power.
It's part of infrastructure of the XXI CENTURY REVOLUTION.
Lift the economic EMBARGO against Cuba.
Start negotiations with Russia.
Ingress heavy manufacture WITH south America.
STOP freaking ingress solar wind power.
It's part of infrastructure of the XXI CENTURY REVOLUTION.
Solar & wind power would bring down prices for electricity which would be helpful in giving more people $ in their pockets instead of electric companies.
Once one dismisses and moves beyond the false and tiresome GOP mantras of "envy economics" and "top-down redistribution of income," supporting the fundamental economics of the president's plan isn't hard.
First, the two biggest and most across-the-board economic expansions of twentieth-century America involved massive government investment in infrastructure/construction; i.e., the WPA following the Great Depression and the Interstate Highway Act/GI Bill following WWII. Austerity measures taken during recessionary times have never---not ever---succeeded (as double- and triple-dip recessions in the EU and the slow recovery in the U.S. show). On the other hand, government investment on a massive scale---especially in the construction sector---in a recessionary economy has resulted in major job growth and economic expansion twice in the last 100 years.
Second, the economic history of the past 35 years is the pudding in which we find proof that capital/income redistribution has, indeed, been enormous. But it has been redistribution from the bottom-up, not from the top-down. The exponential growth of wealth/capital/income/opportunity inequality over those years puts the lie to the claims of Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans that the opposite has been the case.
Third, economic boom-times in the U.S. result from prosperity in the middle- and working-classes. The president's program at least starts movement in that direction.
First, the two biggest and most across-the-board economic expansions of twentieth-century America involved massive government investment in infrastructure/construction; i.e., the WPA following the Great Depression and the Interstate Highway Act/GI Bill following WWII. Austerity measures taken during recessionary times have never---not ever---succeeded (as double- and triple-dip recessions in the EU and the slow recovery in the U.S. show). On the other hand, government investment on a massive scale---especially in the construction sector---in a recessionary economy has resulted in major job growth and economic expansion twice in the last 100 years.
Second, the economic history of the past 35 years is the pudding in which we find proof that capital/income redistribution has, indeed, been enormous. But it has been redistribution from the bottom-up, not from the top-down. The exponential growth of wealth/capital/income/opportunity inequality over those years puts the lie to the claims of Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans that the opposite has been the case.
Third, economic boom-times in the U.S. result from prosperity in the middle- and working-classes. The president's program at least starts movement in that direction.
3
The sequester imposed a $35 billion cut on the military, not in pursuit of a guns to butter policy, but rather because it was the dumbest thing to do. That's the way the sequester worked -- if the parties couldn't agree, they'd have to do dumb stuff. Since they didn't agree, the dumb stuff was done. National defense deserves a smart budget not a purposely dumb one. All smart people can agree on that.
1
The immolation mindset of the GOP, since their leaders have lost control, is a shadow of the Met Operas
1
Tax and spend.
How original.
How original.
11
Seems better than cutting taxes and spending more like someone I distinctly recall.
1
Paul Krugman needs to get a meeting with the deficit hawks and do some serious macroeconomic explaining. With deflation in the Eurozone's sights he might be able to get some points across, even to those who prefer to spout slogans about economies being like household budgets.
President Obama's budget is a political and fiscal document. A budget process requires a debate on priorities. In general, President Obama proposes setting priorities on investment, growth and rebalancing of the economy to allow the middle and lower classes to fully participate in the tremendous amount of wealth they help create. The Republicans want to continue the discredited approach of austerity for many and gluttony for the few.
The EU applied austerity in their fiscal policies during the Great Recession. The consequences are anemic consumer demand, endemic high unemployment and deflation. Sequestration is our flavor of austerity somewhat mitigated by President Obama's stimulus policies. Nevertheless, recent economic reports document the US economy's GDP growth has fallen from 5% to 2.5%. The 50% decrease in the worldwide price of oil and current oversupply has moderated the US economy's downward slide for the present.
Republicans like Mr. Ryan are the ones offering "more of the same Neoliberalism" of deficit reduction, entitlement reform (aka cheat the boomers out of the benefits they overpaid for) and regulatory overhaul. Republican disengenousness wants to shift the blame of massive undocumented foreign workers on President Obama instead of their contributors who laid off or fired citizens to hire them. President Obama isn't blameless either here. Temporarily suspending deportation and issuing work permits will increase competition for not create jobs.
The EU applied austerity in their fiscal policies during the Great Recession. The consequences are anemic consumer demand, endemic high unemployment and deflation. Sequestration is our flavor of austerity somewhat mitigated by President Obama's stimulus policies. Nevertheless, recent economic reports document the US economy's GDP growth has fallen from 5% to 2.5%. The 50% decrease in the worldwide price of oil and current oversupply has moderated the US economy's downward slide for the present.
Republicans like Mr. Ryan are the ones offering "more of the same Neoliberalism" of deficit reduction, entitlement reform (aka cheat the boomers out of the benefits they overpaid for) and regulatory overhaul. Republican disengenousness wants to shift the blame of massive undocumented foreign workers on President Obama instead of their contributors who laid off or fired citizens to hire them. President Obama isn't blameless either here. Temporarily suspending deportation and issuing work permits will increase competition for not create jobs.
Foolish!! Foolish!! Foolish!!. Another federal budget, although it is shameful to call it that. The "Defense Department" is not about defense! The "budget" is not about the budget". The "economic needs" are not about "economic needs". The "federal budget" is about, and has always been, about creating jobs for the many Congressional districts. DDE was right. Unfortunately, nobody believed Eisenhower about budgets, nor any other cautions. Now the bill comes due..............
3
If they are serious about balance the budget, why don't the GOP leaders suggest cutting military spending?
2
If it helps the middle class Republicans will be against it . That is why we have a democratic president. Republican's so stupid they believe in trickle down economics. The GOP knows it's a lie.
4
It doesn't help the middle class, it helps the oligarchs. Youve'e been grubered.
What a difference 50 years makes:
Total federal government expenditures - 1966: $135 billion, 2014: $4 trillion
Defense as % of federal expenditures - 1966: 43.2%, 2014: 15.4%
Defense as % of GDP - 1966: 8.1%, 2014: 3.8% (2016 not available)
I think we're now down to a point where as a % of GDP, defense expenditures are lower than they were in 1940. Of course back then we had a huge military ready for WWII. ;-)
Total federal government expenditures - 1966: $135 billion, 2014: $4 trillion
Defense as % of federal expenditures - 1966: 43.2%, 2014: 15.4%
Defense as % of GDP - 1966: 8.1%, 2014: 3.8% (2016 not available)
I think we're now down to a point where as a % of GDP, defense expenditures are lower than they were in 1940. Of course back then we had a huge military ready for WWII. ;-)
4
You need to study history. About 500,000 troops were fighting in Vietnam in 1966. That's why expenditures appear inflated. 1940 was a pre-war year, and we were not on a defense footing. That's why those numbers appear low. Present peacetime expenditures are historically high, though lower than wartime expenditures of course. The military budget has grown relative to non-military all other things being equal.
1
Balanced budget left by Clinton.
Fed chief, Aynn Rand acolyte, Alan Greenspan worried about the paying off the national debt too quickly.
Bush, the lesser, started two Wars and cut taxes during war for the first time in American history.
Cheney reminded America that Reagan said deficits don't matter.
Now Republicans claim deficits do matter?
Fed chief, Aynn Rand acolyte, Alan Greenspan worried about the paying off the national debt too quickly.
Bush, the lesser, started two Wars and cut taxes during war for the first time in American history.
Cheney reminded America that Reagan said deficits don't matter.
Now Republicans claim deficits do matter?
4
After the 1994 GOP sweep the economy picked up.
2
"For Republicans in Congress, however, the great strategic cause is balancing the budget."
Preposterous. We had a balanced budget, but Republicans torpedoed it with their greed and envy propelled multi-year tax cut program that ended with a ridiculous one-year estate tax rate of zero.
Preposterous. We had a balanced budget, but Republicans torpedoed it with their greed and envy propelled multi-year tax cut program that ended with a ridiculous one-year estate tax rate of zero.
9
Obama isn't going to do a thing for the middle class or the poor. He's inept and doesn't have a clue about how to be a real leader. It's all a game to these politicians where deals come first and the American people come last...dead last.
11
But he is better than Bush the lesser and Ronald Reagan.
1
When they told us that the viewers of Fox News were less informed than folks who watch no news we were a little suspect. Comments like this one chips away at that doubt.
1
Both the President and the Republican Congress want Americans to save more of their income, save more for health care options, save more for the college education of their children, save more to pay off debts. Why doesn't the government, both the White House and the Congress, lead by example; if not in reduced government spending, then in government savings from our taxes to provide payment for our health care options, higher education, employment training assistance and a living wage for all workers? Our government ought not just tell us to save, but it ought to show taxpayers how to save and budget personal income. If our government can do it, then why not individuals? And if this Congress and this White House can't, then we need new leadership that can show us. So show us how Congress saves! Show us how Congress writes authorizations for spending bills that reduce our deficits, that add value to our national wealth!
3
"In all, such entitlement programs would go from consuming 13.2 percent of the economy this year to 14.8 percent in a decade"
What they are talking about is not what is paid to Social Security and Medicare recipients. What they are talking about is the interest that our Government has to pay the SS fund for what they borrow from it, not the payments themselves. Those are already completely paid for out of FICA taxes.
What they are talking about is not what is paid to Social Security and Medicare recipients. What they are talking about is the interest that our Government has to pay the SS fund for what they borrow from it, not the payments themselves. Those are already completely paid for out of FICA taxes.
7
Medicare is 50% funded from general revenues and the other 50% comes from the trust fund and premiums. It is not funded 100% from payroll taxes, you are misinformed.
For both Medicare and Social Security, the trust funds contain government bonds. Each year, FICA and Medicare taxes are collected. Benefits are paid out of those funds and the balance is spent on other government activities and replaced with government bonds. When the trust fund assets are needed, it's not just the interest on those bonds that has to be paid by the taxpayer it's also the principal. There is no lock box, the money has already been spent.
For both Medicare and Social Security, the trust funds contain government bonds. Each year, FICA and Medicare taxes are collected. Benefits are paid out of those funds and the balance is spent on other government activities and replaced with government bonds. When the trust fund assets are needed, it's not just the interest on those bonds that has to be paid by the taxpayer it's also the principal. There is no lock box, the money has already been spent.
1
No, Congress took the money paid from FICA and put it into the general fund. Social Security and Medicare accounts are basically filled with IOUs.
1
Interesting thing about the schism in the Republicans posture on immigration: Mitt Romney has a plan to have workers illegally present in the U.S. "self deport" without explaining how - could he mean enforcing the current, Ronald Reagan enacted law which progressively fines/sanctions employer's who hire them? - while Scott Walker does not support amnesty/legalization, but does not support their deportation. Given that legalization would force employers to pay such workers minimum wage, time and one half for hours worked over 40 hours a week, union organizing rights, OSHA protection, etc., etc., no wonder Mitt dropped the issue like a hot potato and Scott doesn't want legalization but needs to keep the exploited, cheap labor right here in our country. Their big and small business financial doners want the best of both worlds.
How about legalization/ammensty of these workers and a tax breaks for those employer's who employ them and retain jobs in the U.S. for ALL American workers? It would go a long way in addressING this otherwise hidden Republican hypocrisy.
How about legalization/ammensty of these workers and a tax breaks for those employer's who employ them and retain jobs in the U.S. for ALL American workers? It would go a long way in addressING this otherwise hidden Republican hypocrisy.
Obama offered work permits to the "dreamers" in 2012 as a political ploy. Although 98% of those who applied have been granted work permits, only 25% of those eligible have applied during the last two years. Could it be that 75% of the dreamers are more than happy to work off-the-books and pay no taxes. And very few of them are being paid below minimum wage. They know their rights.
What makes you believe that their parents are going to be any more law abiding than the dreamers?
What makes you believe that their parents are going to be any more law abiding than the dreamers?
1
Obama's "boldness" is nothing more then cover for international fiasco and zero plans. So he throws in the air some budget that would paint republicans bad just like there is always a tearful story of sick child that free healthcare saves and big bad republicans want only the death of. It is like watching a badly scripted movie with Obama lip-sinking lines of political watch dogs who know what to say to the general public--promise, promise, promise.
7
For every million Americans without health care, ten thousand die prematurely -- every year.
Republicans want to take health care from ten million Americans who got it through ACA -- one hundred premature deaths every year.
Republicans need to demonstrate personal responsibility for their policy of mass, premeditated murder of fellow citizens.
Republicans want to take health care from ten million Americans who got it through ACA -- one hundred premature deaths every year.
Republicans need to demonstrate personal responsibility for their policy of mass, premeditated murder of fellow citizens.
1
What international fiasco? Like Ebola? Putin? ISIS? Repubs are great at fear mongering. If they didn't beat the fear drum no one would listen to what they have to say. Zero plans? Still have your ears shut tight to the proposals from the SOTU? Sure, Repubs want to drown out the message from the SOTU because it paints them into a corner...again. Repubs are reduced to carping and whining, as they have done during the entirety of Obama's terms. Zero as in GOP proposals should be said.
By the way, America now has the strongest economy in the developed world. That is because of the steady and intelligent policies of the Obama administration. This recovery belongs to President Obama and the Democrats. The GOP have done everything in their power to derail our recovery. They have contributed nothing. In fact the GOP cost our economy 1.5% in GDP in 2013 from their government shutdown and obstruction.
By the way, America now has the strongest economy in the developed world. That is because of the steady and intelligent policies of the Obama administration. This recovery belongs to President Obama and the Democrats. The GOP have done everything in their power to derail our recovery. They have contributed nothing. In fact the GOP cost our economy 1.5% in GDP in 2013 from their government shutdown and obstruction.
1
Obamacare is a fiasco.
Expand Medicare instead.
Democrats are the ones responsible for a 'policy of mass, premeditated murder of fellow citizens'
Obviously you have no idea that many are still w/o health insurance. As it is, health insurance doesn't even include dental care. True health insurance would include that.
Expand Medicare instead.
Democrats are the ones responsible for a 'policy of mass, premeditated murder of fellow citizens'
Obviously you have no idea that many are still w/o health insurance. As it is, health insurance doesn't even include dental care. True health insurance would include that.
1
nothing in this about a straight carbon tax to switch to renewables, or some sort of cost containment to make increased infrastructure or military spending affordable (the sequester does this now). from a macro perspective, spend where the dollars go the furthest (overall this would be education, especially early education--Mr. Kristof's proposals deserve a hearing). reduced corporate taxes, with a minimum tax, should be paired with profit sharing.
if the increased spending is for the elderly, a move toward a more service economy, there should be tax incentives to make this easier.
taking note: the bay bridge was $5 billion over budget; the chinese teach english beginning in the 3rd grade--our students aren't even bilingual in spanish and take remedial english in college.
the 100th anniversary of the national park services is coming up. Teddy Roosevelt added 235 million acres to the parks. i would suggest we duplicate this through federal/state/city incentives and appropriations. banning clear cutting, especially of hardwood forests, is also necessary to protect both forests and biodiversity.
if the increased spending is for the elderly, a move toward a more service economy, there should be tax incentives to make this easier.
taking note: the bay bridge was $5 billion over budget; the chinese teach english beginning in the 3rd grade--our students aren't even bilingual in spanish and take remedial english in college.
the 100th anniversary of the national park services is coming up. Teddy Roosevelt added 235 million acres to the parks. i would suggest we duplicate this through federal/state/city incentives and appropriations. banning clear cutting, especially of hardwood forests, is also necessary to protect both forests and biodiversity.
4
Decades of Head Start have demonstrated that early education is not an investment. Since it has been ineffective, spending more is irrational.
1
I believe some folks watch too much FOX news;.or they're totally ignoring the true , about how many citizens still needs help , or how many citizens can not move ahead for one reason or another. Some people have no clue about how the system really works, how the right wing really wants nothing to do or to help working class or the middle class. How the right wing and Tea-monsters scared the vulnerable voters, specially the white working class against only Spanish immigration, (we don't see the ignorant complaining about other class of immigrants). If you remember, Regan, how his propaganda did damage to the welfare kids? This strategic is working for a long time. Actually most ignorant people when comment against help the vulnerable or talk about welfare; increase the minimum wage, or they're against health insurance (Obama care) against Medicaid or Medicare. They call us socialist How stupid.!!.
3
How is it that the government is crying poverty having ordered over 2,400 new F35 aircraft for $210 million apiece? What do we need them for? To fight with Al Shabob? What's wrong with our presently existing state-of-the-art stuff? No good anymore? If we passed on just a few of them you know how much money we'd have and how we could better spend it on infrastructure?
5
I have a radical suggestion, why don't we discontinue Social Security payments to the wealthy, say anyone with a net worth over one million.
Oh, that's right, it may qualify as skin off of their teeth, we couldn't have that in this country could we?
Oh, that's right, it may qualify as skin off of their teeth, we couldn't have that in this country could we?
2
Better than that - leave Social Security as is and tax those wealthy as they should be taxed.
7
If you are going to stop payments to the wealthy, then I guess you need to also stop social security contributions from the wealthy. After all, social security was established to be a national savings program, not a program for redistribution.
6
Better yet, apply payroll tax to every dollar earned; capital gains, carried interest, earned.
And a maximum income of $1 million a year.
And a maximum income of $1 million a year.
2
I think someone has to defend Americas undocumented immigrants. Hatred is ignorance or lazy minded resentment of others. Heed the warnings of history in which many ethnic groups were victimized by militants among them.
It bears repeating;
Undocumented immigrants living here in the states do in fact contribute immensely by virtue of paying sales taxes on products and fuels, they pay real estate or property taxes that support schools and town services when they pay their rent, and their labor adds value to their work or the products they make thereby contributing to the economy. Think about that the next time you buy food. You might be pretty hungry without immigrants.
It bears repeating;
Undocumented immigrants living here in the states do in fact contribute immensely by virtue of paying sales taxes on products and fuels, they pay real estate or property taxes that support schools and town services when they pay their rent, and their labor adds value to their work or the products they make thereby contributing to the economy. Think about that the next time you buy food. You might be pretty hungry without immigrants.
2
The IRS estimates that illegals are claiming $10B in fraudulent EITC payments every year. A few years ago the IRS mailed out 4800 tax refunds to one address in Atlanta for almost $10MM Cities and counties are absorbing the cost of educating people who are collecting SNAP and other benefits. My county provides tw meals a say to people on SNAP and opens the schools during the summer just to provide the meals and sends "snacks" home with them. These people are costly and not a benefit to the country.
They take far more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Think about it the next time you pay your property taxes. It costs at least twice as much to educate a non-English speaking child as it does to teach an English speaking child. That's $20,000 per year per child, which is far more in costs that the illegal is paying in sales taxes.
1
I don't like the sound of things that will please Republicans. Obama has done so much of this! NO MORE GIVE AWAYS! to big corporations and banks!
9
"Large tax increases on multinational corporations and the rich, and the passage of a comprehensive immigration law.”
Obama wasn't bold enough to propose this in his first 6 years. Even now, there is virtually no chance in Congress for either of these to pass.
But, military spending and highway construction will see speedy passage because the corporates want it. They will tax overseas money at a much lower rate than 35% and then let them bring the rest home by pretending it has already been taxed.
Government for the rich, paid for by the poor. God Bless America.
Obama wasn't bold enough to propose this in his first 6 years. Even now, there is virtually no chance in Congress for either of these to pass.
But, military spending and highway construction will see speedy passage because the corporates want it. They will tax overseas money at a much lower rate than 35% and then let them bring the rest home by pretending it has already been taxed.
Government for the rich, paid for by the poor. God Bless America.
4
As a starting point, Congress could immediately forget about spending even ONE dollar on "comprehensive immigration law". We already have such law and, though it is slow, it has worked well for over 100 years. Although considerable dollars could well be spent on control of people who cross our borders without authorization - which has always been a failure. Can you even IMAGINE such a "comprehensive immigration law" passed by THIS Congress?! Thousands and thousands of pages filled with earmarks and exemptions, to benefit Congress and its owners and donors. Gimme a break!!
4
Finally! Obama is acting with boldness. He has proposed a national budget that will support his progressive outlook. Now he knows that that what he has proposed will not pass with something to draw a few republicans so he has put a bone in it to throw to the republican dogs that hopefully divide them. He included in the budget a little increase for the military while greatly increasing his move to a more progressive government. Many republicans will hold their nose and vote for the budget to get the higher military spending that they want. The progressive spending will happen now while the military spending will be more long range.
Go! OBAMA!
Go! OBAMA!
7
There is nothing bold about proposing a budget that has no chance of passing. That's not leadership. It's sad.
8
No, Josh, what's sad is that a US president lives in a fantasy world, completely removed from his role as Executive. And the people cheer him for producing one fantasy after another.
2
Politicians pay day comes when the government spends on big ticket defense items. The willy Obama has made sure to drop some defense spending to draw out the crony capitalist Republicans. When money flows to defense contracts, money flows from lobbyists to the election fund of politicians. Sequester means no money to fight the next election. So more taxes and spending are inevitable. It is just the Democrats and Republicans have their own constituencies. The middle class and upper middle class are the sacrificial lambs.
1
It is 2015 and we are pretending it is 1965. We have the technology to put transponders in every vehicle and institute fee for services for highway and road infrastructure as well as providing the funds to properly insure road safety. Education serves all of us and it is time we decided the skills we need going into the 21st century and start by realizing we will get the most bang fore the buck by starting preconception when good health asd nutrition will do the most for intellectual and physical development.Maybe our two political parties won't acknowledge it is 2015 but maybe if we yell loud enough they can pretend they are aware of the situation. We have computers and surely we can write programs so that we know how much Iowa pork is consumed in NYC and how much New Yorkers should pay for Iowa roads or whether we should just pay for the real cost in all the products we consume including the cost of the education provided to our doctors lawyers and scientists. Where is the Obama who correctly informed us nobody makes it all on his own.
1
I think the republicans tipped their hand a bit saying they are concerned about the middle class, that they want to attract Hispanics and Blacks; i.e., laughable notions remarkable only for their disingenuity.
Democrats may win with a budget only if republicans are universally derided for their disingenuity. I.e., the democratic machine must use the budget as a tool for painting them anti-middle class and anti-immigrant and anti-Black. Unless republicans feel they have something to lose (and they have not for a while), they are content being the party of no, and playing spoilers. The budget process should be far, far more aggressive (go after all subsidies to big oil, big insurance, big pharma, tax guns, tax ammo, tax all foreign income, etc.). I.e., light a fire under the republican pet issues that keep them smug, happy, and being the party without a significant good idea except "get rid of government."
Kalidan
Democrats may win with a budget only if republicans are universally derided for their disingenuity. I.e., the democratic machine must use the budget as a tool for painting them anti-middle class and anti-immigrant and anti-Black. Unless republicans feel they have something to lose (and they have not for a while), they are content being the party of no, and playing spoilers. The budget process should be far, far more aggressive (go after all subsidies to big oil, big insurance, big pharma, tax guns, tax ammo, tax all foreign income, etc.). I.e., light a fire under the republican pet issues that keep them smug, happy, and being the party without a significant good idea except "get rid of government."
Kalidan
3
And meanwhile, the Koch brothers lobby for taxes on you, not them.
Americans for Prosperity, established by the Koch brothers, is now vigorously opposing the revival of a North Carolina state tax credit for renovating historic properties. David Koch, who cofounded AFP and currently serves as chairman of the AFP Foundation used a near-identical tax credit when he renovated his historic Palm Beach villa — and saved money at local taxpayers’ expense. http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/02/david-kochs-americans-prosperity-fighti...
Americans for Prosperity, established by the Koch brothers, is now vigorously opposing the revival of a North Carolina state tax credit for renovating historic properties. David Koch, who cofounded AFP and currently serves as chairman of the AFP Foundation used a near-identical tax credit when he renovated his historic Palm Beach villa — and saved money at local taxpayers’ expense. http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/02/david-kochs-americans-prosperity-fighti...
4
It is really old to accuse Koch's of everything and anything. Meanwhile, wealthy democrats are pro-government because it gives them "pork" and removes all the competition because no small business can survive the regulations. When democrats talk about Koch is like a pimple faced teenager saying that another person has pimples.
7
No sunshine outing the Koch brothers for vigorously objecting to a tax program in North Carolina after they took advantage of a similar tax incentive for personal benefit is affirming don't hypocritically denounce in public what you do in private. Or more to the point, preaching should follow practice...
1
With $900 million the .0001% can try to buy our government, and sunshine has no problem with that. What's wrong with this picture? Why do they want to buy our government, sunshine? To counter income and wealth disparity, that everyone knows will harm our entire economy, rich and poor alike? Not a chance!
Rather than focussing on Obama and his proposals it would be enlightening to ask what real proposals the Republicans have? So far as I can tell -- none.
The Republicans hold the majority in both the house and senate. They should be explaining real budget and tax measures, fully fleshed out, subject to analysis .
They are doing nothing of the sort -- the ONLY "initiative" the Republicans have at the moment is the XL pipeline! This is an absurd demonstration of how completely bankrupt the Republican party is at doing America's business for American citizens.
The Republican party has no fiscal or governance plan for the United States. It has no internal ability to agree on one to even propose. Its whole plan consists of yelling "No-bama" and demanding somehow that the Democrats figure out how to give them what they want ... or they will shut down the government and threaten to default on American debt.
And now they are in the majority in both houses and they still cannot come to any coherent policy beyond screaming "NO" while pounding their fists on the floor.
The Republicans hold the majority in both the house and senate. They should be explaining real budget and tax measures, fully fleshed out, subject to analysis .
They are doing nothing of the sort -- the ONLY "initiative" the Republicans have at the moment is the XL pipeline! This is an absurd demonstration of how completely bankrupt the Republican party is at doing America's business for American citizens.
The Republican party has no fiscal or governance plan for the United States. It has no internal ability to agree on one to even propose. Its whole plan consists of yelling "No-bama" and demanding somehow that the Democrats figure out how to give them what they want ... or they will shut down the government and threaten to default on American debt.
And now they are in the majority in both houses and they still cannot come to any coherent policy beyond screaming "NO" while pounding their fists on the floor.
8
Outrageous. A trillion dollars in new taxes. An end to the spending cap brought about in a bipartisan vote by Congress. More social programs and giveaways for illegal aliens. Who does Obama work for? Certainly not the American taxpayer. He treats us like a piggy bank to be raided at his whim. The piggy bank is empty. This 'budget" is a slap in the face to fiscal sanity and to economic reality. Obama, who has raised the federal debt from $11 trillion to $17 trillion in 6 short years, is now doubling down on his goal to bankrupt America.
10
Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by reflexively opposing President Obama's budget plan. Republicans control both arms of Congress, they cannot just snarl from the sidelines. Unless they show they have a positive agenda, they risk a drubbing in 2016. And if the President wants a legacy, he will have to work with them. If the President's budget was partly intended as a trap, Republicans walked into it, revealing themselves as the only real obstacle to compromise.
Why do articles like these attract those who live in states that take more from the federal till than what they contribute but who who smugly lecture about living within one's means, let your state pay for your own project and leave my state out of it, etc.?
Obama is asserting, through legal means, his leftist philosophy about how things should go. Besides, conservatives like their big government, too, and it's hysterical to listen to them deny it. But if they don't like socialism, they can do two things: get off the roads, and then find a candidate who can actually win office. It's not the fault of anyone else but conservatives that they can't.
Obama is asserting, through legal means, his leftist philosophy about how things should go. Besides, conservatives like their big government, too, and it's hysterical to listen to them deny it. But if they don't like socialism, they can do two things: get off the roads, and then find a candidate who can actually win office. It's not the fault of anyone else but conservatives that they can't.
9
To The New York Times. Please stop referring to Social Security and Medicare benefits as "entitlements". They are not entitlements; they were dully paid for by my taxes. So far I have paid over 40 years into both programs, so I would have some form of retirement income and medical care. The Democrats and Republicans have stalled for years to dealing with funding issues. Neither wanted to do the right thing by getting rid of the Social Security Payroll tax cap and implement Medicare for All (instead of so called Obamacare).
Both political parties only look out for their benefactors and the so called 1%. While some here will praise the Obama administration, I say the past six years were years which only helped the few at the expense of the many.
Mr. Obama wants to make it even easier to import foreign workers, even though millions in the US cannot find full time employment. The GOP wants to not raise taxes, even though the so called "job creators" are creating jobs overseas. Mr. Obama wants more tax breaks for the middle class. Why doesn't he lower tax rates for the middle class, so singles too can get a break?
This budget, is self serving, Congress serving, special interest serving, but doe snot serve hard working Americans who slave day to day for their pay. Just more political mumbo jumbo and not much else.
Both political parties only look out for their benefactors and the so called 1%. While some here will praise the Obama administration, I say the past six years were years which only helped the few at the expense of the many.
Mr. Obama wants to make it even easier to import foreign workers, even though millions in the US cannot find full time employment. The GOP wants to not raise taxes, even though the so called "job creators" are creating jobs overseas. Mr. Obama wants more tax breaks for the middle class. Why doesn't he lower tax rates for the middle class, so singles too can get a break?
This budget, is self serving, Congress serving, special interest serving, but doe snot serve hard working Americans who slave day to day for their pay. Just more political mumbo jumbo and not much else.
17
Why is it the "right thing" to get rid of the Social Security Payroll tax cap? Social Security is not a tax in the traditional sense (i.e., raise money for the common good); instead, it is effectively a forced savings plan for an individual's benefit.
The cap could have been removed over the past few decades during the baby boomers' careers if the goal was to make it more of a progressive quasi-entitlement. Now that the baby boomers are retiring, and the fund goes from inflows to outflows, there are more urgent calls for removing the caps, and no (or very limited) marginal promised return, in exchange for the excess contributions.
The current class warfare is the opening act for the main event: inter-generational warfare between retirees who rightly contend that they contributed within the rules of the system and their kids who rightfully contend that they are being asked to pay more for less due to their parents' elected leaders' decision to not use the surplus years to pay down the deficit.
The cap could have been removed over the past few decades during the baby boomers' careers if the goal was to make it more of a progressive quasi-entitlement. Now that the baby boomers are retiring, and the fund goes from inflows to outflows, there are more urgent calls for removing the caps, and no (or very limited) marginal promised return, in exchange for the excess contributions.
The current class warfare is the opening act for the main event: inter-generational warfare between retirees who rightly contend that they contributed within the rules of the system and their kids who rightfully contend that they are being asked to pay more for less due to their parents' elected leaders' decision to not use the surplus years to pay down the deficit.
The NYT is right, Nick. SS is indeed an entitlement. It is a budget item just like everything else and can be changed or ended at any time. It is not an accident that most people don't know this.
1
I agree, well said
The GOP is delusional. We do not need to feed the military industrial complex because we are running out of places to store all the ships, tanks and planes. This country’s infrastructure is literally crumbling and it is imperative that it gets attention before it all falls apart. Education is vital to our workforce and to help grow the economy. Corporate welfare needs to end; millionaire and billionaire welfare needs to end. The top 1% needs to start paying their fair share in taxes.
6
Education is paid for by local and state governemnts. There is no need for the federal government to be involved,it just increases overhead.
1
I will believe the President is serious when he gets behind the work of the commission he created called Simpson-Bowles. The none partisan blue print was created with tax payer money at the behest of President Obama. Both sides have walked away from it and the President never pushed for it.
The sequester will be scuttled because both sides want to increase military spending. They have already along with putting boots on the ground.
The sequester will be scuttled because both sides want to increase military spending. They have already along with putting boots on the ground.
2
Our "progressives" chant "we want infrastructure jobs!". They are told that the Keystone pipeline is an infrastructure project and will create around 40000 jobs during construction. Our "progressives" cry but those Keystone jobs aren't permanent!
You can't make this stuff up.
You can't make this stuff up.
8
Keystone will create maybe 4000 construction jobs. You are off by a factor of 10.
5
In 2011, Republican Senators successfully filerbusted the American Jobs Act that would have employed tens if thousands of Americans in the repair and upgrade of infrastructure.
Jobs for the unemployed, badly needed infrastructure improvement were not as important to Republicans as politics then.
Jobs for the unemployed, badly needed infrastructure improvement were not as important to Republicans as politics then.
6
Can we build that pipeline in your back yard, Jacobi? Perhaps we can run it directly underneath your town's reservoir.
4
Does the budget include a performance related pay for Congress? A lower bases salary and back to normal for a productive legislature, but a cut for a Do-Nothing one that does little but play politics.
4
Obama's budget is dead on arrival and so is his presidency, I guess he can hang around, but for what?
10
What bothers me is this: Where was this boldness in the last six years? We could have had these proposals anytime before when they had a better chance of going through the negotiation process and succeeding substantially. Both Obama and the Dems. are too late, and I can't fault the GoP/Tea Party if it now calls these moves just politics and not some act of enlightenment.
7
Obama proposals could not survive Senate Republican filerbusters after Teddy Kennedy died, not could they be scheduled for debate/vote in Republican House -- historical revisionism not withstanding.
4
Folly, pure folly, O living in a dream world. Thank goodness nothing will happen. Let move on to 2016 and hear the outlandish promises the GOP and Hillary will make. Fantasy is all the happens in DC. Sequester will prevail this and next year. All else is stupid being stupid, both parties.
3
Can't help but wonder why these "long overdue" items Obama is proposing weren't proposed when he had the votes to enact them. Good thing we're getting rid of the constraints on "Defense" --aka the war machine--spending. After all, endless war and subjugation of the world's people on behalf of the multinationals is expensive--and to think the multinationals have been excused from having to pay taxes for their expensive terrorism.
7
If Obama had been reading this newspaper, he would have noted that there was very little support for legalizing immigrants who are here illegally. He set himself up for two years of fights on everything and there will be many more compromises as a result.
12
Quack Quack. Lame duck season is in full bloom.
7
I am very glad to see the new budget priorities. I am amazed that Republicans are now trying to board the income inequality train. Sadly for them, it will take more than just words, they will have to back those words with action. History has demonstrated that a vibrant middle class does not happen by accident, it happens with deliberate choices and many of those choices will involve sacrifice from those who have gained the most during the past 35 years. And it's long overdue, too.
46
Tom Hartmann says the current [remnant of the American] middle class is an aberration that has only been created and sustained through government action. When the government withdraws its support, an oligarch develops and the middle class is squeezed out of existence, as we have seen over the past 30 years. Americans appear to realize what's happening to them. They just don't understand why.
2
Sacrifice? Hardly. Ask the Kochs.
Explain how you get to income equality on tax breaks and not rising wages?
1
Funny that the President never managed to present a budget in the past - he just ran the country on continuing resolutions. Now he is stuck.
All the great ideas but none ever proposed when the Democrats ran the show - funny that makes me think the whole charade is about politics.
All the great ideas but none ever proposed when the Democrats ran the show - funny that makes me think the whole charade is about politics.
10
A slight factual error here: The Obama Administration presented budget proposals to Congress every year since he has been in office (you can easily find them on the website of the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. You can find summaries of them in the Statistical Abstract of the US, the World Almanac, and the Times Almanac, among other places.)
Congress has had problems passing budgets on time since the late 1960s, so I don't think we can blame that on President Obama.
Congress has had problems passing budgets on time since the late 1960s, so I don't think we can blame that on President Obama.
4
As long as the President and Congress continue to talk about rates and not the complexity of the code thru its numerous exemptions, credits and deductions(ECD's) unavailable to the general public they are not serious about change. The ECD's are the drain on the treasury and will contiue to be bought bringing in less revenue for the country.
2
The republicans claim, that obama tries to damage the states economy ultimatively and would exploit the companies. I believe, the opposite to be the case. Isnt in fact, that all financial problems based in faults of companies missmanagement and bankers fairy tale idols? Remember esp. the building loan bubble and what really weakend the us economy?! It´s not only the strength of state that states for prosperity. Without even noticing its based on a high level social cohesion. Which stands in directly contrast to these thoughtlessness statements by republicans, who only seem to represent financial interests. May be its also allowed to discuss refinancial interests. For real, dear reps, the american people arent the robber barons. Look at your short term profit maximisators, which values you´ll try to defend. A clientel, not able to think in long term planning. Don´t try to make others understand, you´ll represent the ordinary americans. Not in that way of arguments!
Sequestration is the only thing that this congress has done that has indicated any sense of responsibility. Honestly looking at what we take in and what we spend has never been a strength of either party. It would be a significant step backwards if sequestration were rolled back and each party went back to their former dishonest and irresponsible ways.
8
Of course... I love how compromise starts with shoving the other guy in the corner and then holding him hostage until you get what you want. That is a negotiation tactic - yes - but not much for the idea of compromise.
He will be popular but will also have trouble - Taxing the rich is always popular with the non-rich. So is raising the minimum wage. ...And right now, creating immigration reform that "lifts the Economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers," sounds great, too! But there is a major problem with the combination of those three things - it is a simple issue of supply and demand. You want to flood the market with more legalized workers and you insist that they be paid more. Finally, you also want to tax the employers at a higher rate. In recorded history, no such combination of initiatives has created or sustained a robust economy, in peacetime.
The ideology that the national government can and should force people to spread the wealth is not an American ideology. It was a Russian ideology, and it didn't work, there. Ignoring the political labeling, remember that the national leaders stripped the rich of their wealth and then proceeded to keep those riches for themselves. The lives of the general populace weren't improved.
It's an issue of theory versus reality.
He will be popular but will also have trouble - Taxing the rich is always popular with the non-rich. So is raising the minimum wage. ...And right now, creating immigration reform that "lifts the Economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers," sounds great, too! But there is a major problem with the combination of those three things - it is a simple issue of supply and demand. You want to flood the market with more legalized workers and you insist that they be paid more. Finally, you also want to tax the employers at a higher rate. In recorded history, no such combination of initiatives has created or sustained a robust economy, in peacetime.
The ideology that the national government can and should force people to spread the wealth is not an American ideology. It was a Russian ideology, and it didn't work, there. Ignoring the political labeling, remember that the national leaders stripped the rich of their wealth and then proceeded to keep those riches for themselves. The lives of the general populace weren't improved.
It's an issue of theory versus reality.
9
Actually, redistribution was a very American ideology from 1945 - 1981, and it's the reason we had a strong middle class during all those years.
20
Ed ... you should ask why the Bolshevik revolution (or the french revolution) happened, rather than arguing its outcome.
People have talked about the distribution of wealth in the US going back to the Populists at least, and communism had not taken control in the Soviet Union back then (I rather doubt that most of the Populists had ever heard of Karl Marx, much less read his ideas.)
1
would lift the economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers.
----------Dream on. Adding more people, through birth or immigration, expands the economy BUT at the literal expense of the American worker. We've had high levels of immigration, legal and illegal, which did indeed expand the size of the economy, but which also helped depress wages and which enabled the top 1% to get an even larger share of the wealth of this country. Immigration, especially when we have so many Americans already out of work, is a subsidy to Big Business. Heck, even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed under George W. Bush, admitted he wanted more immigration to keep wages and salaries down, and that's what we got.
----------Dream on. Adding more people, through birth or immigration, expands the economy BUT at the literal expense of the American worker. We've had high levels of immigration, legal and illegal, which did indeed expand the size of the economy, but which also helped depress wages and which enabled the top 1% to get an even larger share of the wealth of this country. Immigration, especially when we have so many Americans already out of work, is a subsidy to Big Business. Heck, even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed under George W. Bush, admitted he wanted more immigration to keep wages and salaries down, and that's what we got.
7
As the Baby boomer retire, somebody has to work to pay the taxes to keep paying for this massive debt run up at least as much by Republicans as Democrats. Illeagal immigrants are already here. We need them to pay taxes. Have you ever seen a Republican President Balance a budget or even come close? Have you ever seen the right wing media or Republicans in General concerned about the debt when a Republican was in the white house? I remember during the Bush administration They told us "we cant balance the budget during a recession, we have to stimulate the economy". I remember McCain went to the President and said he needed to cut spending and Bush said if he cut spending he'd lose the congress. Today Republicans complain about the debt and I think they are right but where were they before? I think they put politics before country all the time, on every issue. That is not the act of a patriot.
9
A few sops to his liberal constituency and then he throws them under the bus. But the Republicans still won't go for it because the sweeteners he throws in won't be enough. In the short term they believe the best policy is to humiliate him and then wait it out till 2016 when they think they will clean up and get everything they want. Will it happen? Obama seems to be making it easier for them.
5
The President mentions nothing of the fact almost half of the Americans are getting government assistance. Instead of taxing, he should start closing these egregious trade agreements and work on bringing back manufacturing jobs, as costs rise in China and India. Then he will have a larger tax base, not treat the upper class and rich like an ATM.
Community college is fantastic; it helped me, giving me a much needed relief on 4-year tuition. However, handouts aren't the way - provide subsidies, but MAKE the student have skin in the game. This also puts downward pressure on 4-year schools to become cheaper, as the first 2 years of a CC acts as a substitute for the gen eds one would take at any University (unless basic sociology classes are that differentiated).
Infrastructure is highly important; an overpass down here in Cincinnati (Exit 3) just collapsed over the highway two weeks ago, killing one. I can safely tell you, Cincinnati has god-awful infrastructure - but, raise the gas tax along with taxing corporations to fix it. It is rather one-sided for one entity to fund a major initiative.
Community college is fantastic; it helped me, giving me a much needed relief on 4-year tuition. However, handouts aren't the way - provide subsidies, but MAKE the student have skin in the game. This also puts downward pressure on 4-year schools to become cheaper, as the first 2 years of a CC acts as a substitute for the gen eds one would take at any University (unless basic sociology classes are that differentiated).
Infrastructure is highly important; an overpass down here in Cincinnati (Exit 3) just collapsed over the highway two weeks ago, killing one. I can safely tell you, Cincinnati has god-awful infrastructure - but, raise the gas tax along with taxing corporations to fix it. It is rather one-sided for one entity to fund a major initiative.
38
Speaking sensibly to the liberal NYT base is a wasted effort. They see nothing wrong with the ever-increasing fraction of Americans on the dole. Oh if the public only knew how much these lying Democrat legislators are worth. There's a reason why union folks always vote Dem. There's also a reason why the TZ bridge will cost $2.5 billion to build.....they're all union workers bilking the taxpayers for every penny they can!
3
What did community college cost you, back when you had "skin in the game"? What does that same community college cost today?
1
Remember, Don, that those folks on the "dole" include our retirees, disabled American veterans (wars make more of them), a great many homeowners, the oil industry, etc., etc. As for lying, that appears to be a bipartisan activity, and we don't find many blue-collar members of Congress in either party, do we?
3
I think it's pretty clear that O knew he couldn't get anything through. Which presents a golden opportunity: now he can throw up stuff to generate enthusiasm in the base running up to 2016. They'll fall for it. We're all such willing dupes, whatever "side" we're on. (This is really more a comment on the News Analysis, but we can't comment there for some reason.)
9
For the life of me, I don't understand why we can't cut defense spending. We could cure lots of ills and eliminate lots of waste by cutting it by 15-20%
42
Our right wing doesn't negotiate.
They trade hostages for cash.
They trade hostages for cash.
38
One can always hope for the best, but my sense is that there will be talk yet the two sides won't find meaningful accommodation. The current congressional majorities were not elected to increase taxes of any kind, and the governors who have done so out of some desperation likely will pay the price at election time. Without increased taxes and with all else equal, the cost of Mr. Obama's program proffers simply will not be wearable given current levels of debt. There also remain a lot of elected Republicans who believe that the sequester is the only actionable way of reducing what we spend on government, and thus the size and intrusiveness of government.
But there is a way ... If only we had a man or woman with the vision to see it and the capacity to sell it.
All else does not need to be equal. Our social welfare programs are far and away the most expensive in the world for what they seek to do, and we spend more on education than just about anybody. What do we get for our money? We get millions of uninsured and pedestrian medical outcomes, and kids who largely are uncompetitive on a global scale as well as economically immobile because of the vast variation in the quality and effectiveness of primary and secondary education across our nation.
If we had someone who saw the way to funding new initiatives by reforming our current ones to throw off cash without sacrificing quality, we could make a start DESPITE the hardness of our polar ideological positions.
But there is a way ... If only we had a man or woman with the vision to see it and the capacity to sell it.
All else does not need to be equal. Our social welfare programs are far and away the most expensive in the world for what they seek to do, and we spend more on education than just about anybody. What do we get for our money? We get millions of uninsured and pedestrian medical outcomes, and kids who largely are uncompetitive on a global scale as well as economically immobile because of the vast variation in the quality and effectiveness of primary and secondary education across our nation.
If we had someone who saw the way to funding new initiatives by reforming our current ones to throw off cash without sacrificing quality, we could make a start DESPITE the hardness of our polar ideological positions.
5
Richard,
If by most expensive you mean the least bang for the buck you are certainly correct. Good people cost money and looking to do everything on the cheap has indeed exacted a heavy toll. Money expended on education is best spent in the time before conception until 10 years of age. The billions spent on universities cannot ever make up for those lost years of intellectual and physical development.
What you see as an ideological chasm was best described by an early 19th century Nova Scotian diplomat and humourist Thomas Chandler Haliburton when he said "When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry."
Both your political parties cleave to the thoughts and ideas of Adam Smith who died in 1790. It is 260 years since we started believing Smith's economic bible. The only wealth we can really carry into the future is a healthy, educated and creative population and the only way that is going to happen is when the entire spectrum of the body politic realizes that in the 21st century that is the New Wealth of Nations. The future belongs to those willing to sacrifice some of our overabundance to build the infrastructure for tomorrow's success. Taxes should be an investment into what h
could be not the penalty for what was. If America cannot afford the best and brightest to build its future maybe it is time to fold up its tent and go home.
If by most expensive you mean the least bang for the buck you are certainly correct. Good people cost money and looking to do everything on the cheap has indeed exacted a heavy toll. Money expended on education is best spent in the time before conception until 10 years of age. The billions spent on universities cannot ever make up for those lost years of intellectual and physical development.
What you see as an ideological chasm was best described by an early 19th century Nova Scotian diplomat and humourist Thomas Chandler Haliburton when he said "When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry."
Both your political parties cleave to the thoughts and ideas of Adam Smith who died in 1790. It is 260 years since we started believing Smith's economic bible. The only wealth we can really carry into the future is a healthy, educated and creative population and the only way that is going to happen is when the entire spectrum of the body politic realizes that in the 21st century that is the New Wealth of Nations. The future belongs to those willing to sacrifice some of our overabundance to build the infrastructure for tomorrow's success. Taxes should be an investment into what h
could be not the penalty for what was. If America cannot afford the best and brightest to build its future maybe it is time to fold up its tent and go home.
6
Yes, we've got a LoJack on spending and someone with an axe continuously trying to break it off and hit the spending gas full speed. How dreadfully unexamined.
I'm all for spending, just not by this Administration, which has already demonstrated it cannot implement. Period. If the Obama Administration could audit its spending on infrastructure the way it audited its spending in Syria, I would, of course, change my mind.
I'm all for spending, just not by this Administration, which has already demonstrated it cannot implement. Period. If the Obama Administration could audit its spending on infrastructure the way it audited its spending in Syria, I would, of course, change my mind.
I fear tax reform, because by the time tax gets paid, the only ones out in the rain are ordinary taxpayers. The others always find a place to hide.
11
Many/most of the comments here are as delusional as Obama and his political advisers. The idea that after you lose an historic election -- the GOP took over the Senate; now has its biggest majority in the House in 75 years; controls 31 governorships; and painted the vast majority of state houses blood red -- you decide to triple-down on the ideology that led to your shellacking is simply surreal. The NY Times headline writers keep celebrating this Obama disconnect from realty as "boldness." The rest of us non-true-Obama-believers see it for what it is: confrontational and pathetic.
24
Historic election? 63% of the electorate did not vote. The 99% is rarely represented in Washington. If you believe that the Republicans represent your economic interests, think again.
The Koch brothers are spending nearly $1 billion in 2016. What does the billionaire class want? They want to take us back to the Gilded Age by eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They want to pay workers $3 or $4 an hour, eliminate public education, pollute the environment at the expense of taxpayers, and much more.
David Koch’s fringe platform as a vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1980 has become widely accepted by today’s GOP. The 1980 platform:
- We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws.
- We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
- We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.
- We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service.
- We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.
- We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.
- We advocate the complete separation of education and State.
The platform called for eliminating the Department of Energy, EPA, FEC, FAA, FDA, OSHA, Department of Transportation, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
For more on the platform:
What Do the Koch Brothers Want?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
The Koch brothers are spending nearly $1 billion in 2016. What does the billionaire class want? They want to take us back to the Gilded Age by eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They want to pay workers $3 or $4 an hour, eliminate public education, pollute the environment at the expense of taxpayers, and much more.
David Koch’s fringe platform as a vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1980 has become widely accepted by today’s GOP. The 1980 platform:
- We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws.
- We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
- We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.
- We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service.
- We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.
- We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.
- We advocate the complete separation of education and State.
The platform called for eliminating the Department of Energy, EPA, FEC, FAA, FDA, OSHA, Department of Transportation, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
For more on the platform:
What Do the Koch Brothers Want?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
18
Except for one key thing -- he is the President. Not the President of Congress, the President of the US, and he has his poli beliefs and platform. When a Republican becomes POTUS, and if Congress is still Republican, then what you say is do-able. Until then, I would not expect a POTUS to change his or her poli beliefs because Congress is now majority the other party. This stuff happens, and it happened under Bush, under Clinton, etc., and now it's a matter of compromise. The Republicans won the Senate and the House, not the Presidency. They all have to work together, and all values, beliefs and priorities are on the table.
8
Reminiscent of the last six years, eh? Obama won with a resounding majority, and Republicans never - not once - honored any sort of mandate that majority vote implied, but instead blocked, filibustered, shut down, and non-governed to the tune of billions of wasted taxpayer money and obstruction rarely seen in the history of the US Congress, with approval ratings the lowest in the history of polling.....And ALL this during the worst recession in 80 years, and two lengthy and expensive wars. The mid-term elections were won by the votes of 22% of the lowest number of eligible voters since 1942.
Confrontational and pathetic? Hardly. If I were to have my way, this is only the beginning.
Confrontational and pathetic? Hardly. If I were to have my way, this is only the beginning.
62
Missing from the Budget are proposals to reduce the costs of Medicare , Medicaid and social Security
These programs constitute over 60 percent of our budget and are the main drivers of our deficit and debt.
The Republicans will propose cutting benefits before we do this I would like to see us cut out waste and blatant abuse, set up a Blue Riband panel of experts to propose a more efficient and fairer reimbursement fees to Doctors and Hospitals.
Most of all negotiate prices on prescription drugs to the level enjoyed by all industrial states.
As far as Social Security is concerned I would freeze payments at current level to all recipients with income over $ 100000.
These programs constitute over 60 percent of our budget and are the main drivers of our deficit and debt.
The Republicans will propose cutting benefits before we do this I would like to see us cut out waste and blatant abuse, set up a Blue Riband panel of experts to propose a more efficient and fairer reimbursement fees to Doctors and Hospitals.
Most of all negotiate prices on prescription drugs to the level enjoyed by all industrial states.
As far as Social Security is concerned I would freeze payments at current level to all recipients with income over $ 100000.
3
Everyone seems to forget that Social Security is payed for by payroll taxes. We paid into the system like an insurance policy or savings account. That's why they call it an entitlement! We are entitled to it!!!
It is the Congress that has robbed money from the trust fund to subsidize their pet programs.
Keep your darn hands off my Social Secerity!
It is the Congress that has robbed money from the trust fund to subsidize their pet programs.
Keep your darn hands off my Social Secerity!
54
How can Social Security be a "main driver" of our deficits and debt when it is funded by the payroll tax? It has NOT added one penny to the deficit. It has $2.7 trillion in its trust fund and can pay all benefits for the next 19 years. If we lifted the $118,500 cap on the payroll tax (starting at $250,000), it would be solvent for the next few decades.
46
Social Security is still in surplus. Let's not forget that the ACA cuts government subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans, subsidies that are just giveaways to the insurance industry.
17
How is the sequester a bad policy? In 2010 the Tea Party ran on the deficit (of which Obamacare was a main part) as a threat to western civilization.
The sequesters have reduced the deficit, according to the president in his SOTU, by 2/3rds.
Is there ANY conservative issue that conservatives can focus on for more than 15 minutes?
Need money for roads? Raise the gas tax! Need money for social security? Raise the payroll tax!
Eliminate the corporate income tax completely and tax shareholders with an AGI over $1 million at their ordinary rate on unearned income.
The sequesters have reduced the deficit, according to the president in his SOTU, by 2/3rds.
Is there ANY conservative issue that conservatives can focus on for more than 15 minutes?
Need money for roads? Raise the gas tax! Need money for social security? Raise the payroll tax!
Eliminate the corporate income tax completely and tax shareholders with an AGI over $1 million at their ordinary rate on unearned income.
18
Paul, I like that you're thinking outside the box a little. I think you've got a starter on the corp. income tax approach. Also, I firmly believe that capital gains need to be taxed at earned income rates if those gains come from revenue on stocks held for less than 5 years. Instead of jettisoning sequestration, how about keeping the overall reductions, but instead of a flat reduction in every program affected, allow some flexibility within departments to direct those reductions strategically. As for SS, agree that the payroll tax should just be raised. Everyone is so busy fighting this on an ideological level that we never get an actual figure that would make the program whole. For all we know, as little as another $1/$100 of income would do the trick. As a country I think we should philosophically be moving towards two things: universal healthcare and public funding of universal education through 4-year college. They sound ambitious, but if people looked for ways to accomplish it over a decade or two, I believe it could be done. In my opinion, nothing would do more for our country of the future than those two things. Educate people and try to keep them healthy, then all else will follow.
3
To Wattsinchicago
Actually, about a year ago someone high up in the economic punditry (I forget who it was, maybe Steve Rattner) said if the payroll tax was increased 1.2 points on employer and employee the problem of full funding of baby boomer retirement goes away for 75 years.
On a salary of 50K that would be $600 per year.
Actually, about a year ago someone high up in the economic punditry (I forget who it was, maybe Steve Rattner) said if the payroll tax was increased 1.2 points on employer and employee the problem of full funding of baby boomer retirement goes away for 75 years.
On a salary of 50K that would be $600 per year.
I suspect you mean on "earned income?"
Why does a separate income tax rate exist for "capital gains?"
Why does a separate income tax rate exist for "capital gains?"
1
However, this article makes no mention of the TPP and the other treaties, which the Congressional majority would love to pass, drafted by special interests/big business which Obama wants to fast track, with an up or down vote, without letting the public see it, and only letting Congress view it without allowing them a copy.
It has been reported that some of the leaked provisions will be deleterious to US jobs, the costs of medicines and redress of our legal rights. This is neither transparent and nor democratic.
It has been reported that some of the leaked provisions will be deleterious to US jobs, the costs of medicines and redress of our legal rights. This is neither transparent and nor democratic.
19
The TPP is about much more than trade. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their ‘future’ profits. Lawyers will rotate acting as judges and representing corporations.
The TPP will benefit corporate America at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment, and U.S. sovereignty. It will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) undermine internet freedom, and (3) increase the outsourcing of jobs and ban “Buy American” policies.
Public Citizen - TPP: Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices http://www.citizen.org/TPP
The TPP will benefit corporate America at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment, and U.S. sovereignty. It will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) undermine internet freedom, and (3) increase the outsourcing of jobs and ban “Buy American” policies.
Public Citizen - TPP: Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices http://www.citizen.org/TPP
18
Having supporting Obama in 2 elections I have been wondering where he's been. If he's free by not having another election to fight then his conduct was measured by a degree of pandering that often seemed ineffectual. I have been solidly disappointed by his tenure and by the death grip money has on our country.
14
I'll believe that Obama is serious about infrastructure projects when he starts supporting the keystone pipeline. Could it be that Obama does not know what an infrastructure project is?
4
Jacobi, you do realize that the Keystone Pipeline will create “35” permanent jobs, right? Tar Sands oil is some of the dirtiest oil on the planet. 97% of the scientific community says that (1) climate change is real, (2) it is caused by man, (3) that we are already feeling the effects of climate change across the globe, and (4) that we need to move away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy. Moving to sustainable energy and energy efficiency would create LOTS more jobs than building a pipeline. Get on board, Jacobi, if you want this plant to remain habitable for future generations.
65
Keystone is a pet project that benefits the Koch brothers and Canadian tar sands production. With the low oil prices currently we are enjoying it is not even financially feasible right now anyway. It will create a dangerous piece of infrastructure that will have to be much better maintained than our roads and bridges in order that it does not damage our food and water supply through the central states. There are much more important and future looking infrastructure projects that should take precedence - that will employ more people longer and improve commerce for the next century.
17
@ RLS
You realize that infrastructure projects in general produce zero permanent jobs right? Then again like Obama perhaps you are unclear what an infrastructure job is?
You realize that infrastructure projects in general produce zero permanent jobs right? Then again like Obama perhaps you are unclear what an infrastructure job is?
Two things here: 1) the final end of the sequester is good all around, and would make the government operate more efficiently in the long term. I have a friend who has been waiting for a job with the Defense Department for over two years ... after the government already spent thousands of dollars clearing him. Finally bringing people like him aboard would ensure that money was well-spent and ensure our ability to continue meet global security obligations into the future.
2) The government must do more than Obama is proposing to improve infrastructure. It has been crumbling for years and it absolutely vital to the economy, public health, state budgets, etc. Raise the gas tax to pay for it now that gas is under $3 a gallon ... it will be more than worth it in the long run.
2) The government must do more than Obama is proposing to improve infrastructure. It has been crumbling for years and it absolutely vital to the economy, public health, state budgets, etc. Raise the gas tax to pay for it now that gas is under $3 a gallon ... it will be more than worth it in the long run.
2
Budget sequestration is one of the best government policies ever happened. Just like invest in SP 500 index mutual fund, the no brainer approach performs better than 80% of all the mutual funds -year in and year out. The current budget sequestration approach functions the same way, and the end result is an manageable budget without incurring more debt. It is much better than BIG budget deficit year in and year out. And the no brainer approach also stop the increase in our national debt. It is much better than the combined brain power of all those congressmen and senators. What else could it be better than budget sequestration.
4
Wasn't so great for the people that lost their jobs for this showdown.
1
The biggest issue I have with the tax and spend model is when does it end? Assume Obama gets the hedgefund carried interest rate (only about $40 bln over 10 years, not moving the needle) and the one-time corporate profit repatriation tax, that's all well and good, but those proceeds have already been ear-marked to be spent. If 2, 3, 4 years - what will be the next pool of assets to be taxed? We already have income tax, payroll, property tax, gas tax, sales tax, toll roads, airport fees, hotel fees, etc. etc., it never ends!
9
Why wasn't Obama a "populist" on day one? The congress was in Democrat hands. Instead he went for the market centered right wing health care plan. His latest plan doesn't have a ghost of a chance. . Must be show. You have to wonder about the 2 party system.
19
"right wing health plan" ???? Not a single Republican voted for it.
1
Tamar,
The ACA was a huge payout to the healthcare and health insurance system. Just about every single analyst agrees with that. Just because no Republican voted for the ACA does not mean it wasn't a handout.
The ACA "negotiations" will go down in history as the single biggest pulling the wool over the eyes of the American People.
The ACA was a huge payout to the healthcare and health insurance system. Just about every single analyst agrees with that. Just because no Republican voted for the ACA does not mean it wasn't a handout.
The ACA "negotiations" will go down in history as the single biggest pulling the wool over the eyes of the American People.
3
The Republicans were not involved in any negotiations over Obamacare, they were completely shut out. But you are correct that it was always intended to be a big payday for big medicine. Nothing in the law expands the supply of medical services, all it does is funnel taxpayer dollars to insurance companies.
Why should my income taxes and property taxes go up to support even more illegal aliens that should not have been allowed to enter the US in the first place?
34
You don't understand. Obama wishes to legitimize immigrants so they contribute by paying income taxes. They already effectively pay consumption or sales taxes.
7
Your taxes are not supporting illegal aliens, although they may in large part be being used to secure the border and deport them in large numbers. Illegal aliens do not have access to government social services unless they have a forged SS card that passes scrutiny. Hospitals might not turn them away if they come into emergency rooms due to the nature of the Hippocratic oath.
11
Mary,
One could make an argument that subsidized health insurance policies (as with all health insurance policies), as a part of our healthcare costs, have a certain amount of money built into premium costs to cover the uninsured who do arrive at the ER uninsured.
One could make an argument that subsidized health insurance policies (as with all health insurance policies), as a part of our healthcare costs, have a certain amount of money built into premium costs to cover the uninsured who do arrive at the ER uninsured.
1
I wish someday, the NYT or any other US media outlet for the matter has the guts to delve into what the Republican proposals are for a balanced budget, compare and contrast that with the democrats plan and say the TRUTH OUT LOUD!
Instead of reporting the useless 'HE said', 'SHE said' arguments to muddle these important issues/decisions of our times and confuse the average american, why not concentrate on illuminating the real truths with integrity?
Is that too much to ask?
Instead of reporting the useless 'HE said', 'SHE said' arguments to muddle these important issues/decisions of our times and confuse the average american, why not concentrate on illuminating the real truths with integrity?
Is that too much to ask?
16
This would be the perfect time to deal with tax inversions. Just because there haven't been any prominent tax inversion stories lately, (since the Burger King/Tim Horton deal was announced), doesn't mean that the problem has gone away.
What we need in our country are laws which DEEM all money earned by US corporations and their phony-baloney foreign subsidiaries to be US Taxable Income regardless of where it's earned and regardless of whether the US corporation ever brings that money home. And I mean every year, not the one-time tax that this piece suggests.
This is exactly how individual US citizens are treated under the same circumstances. (As with individuals, the corporations would, of course, get dollar-for-dollar tax credits for foreign taxes paid on those same earnings.)
When corporations start paying their fair share of the taxes on all income FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED we can drastically reduce our income tax rate on all corporations. 18% seems about right. Do that and foreign corporations will come flocking to US. We will be the world's tax haven.
What we need in our country are laws which DEEM all money earned by US corporations and their phony-baloney foreign subsidiaries to be US Taxable Income regardless of where it's earned and regardless of whether the US corporation ever brings that money home. And I mean every year, not the one-time tax that this piece suggests.
This is exactly how individual US citizens are treated under the same circumstances. (As with individuals, the corporations would, of course, get dollar-for-dollar tax credits for foreign taxes paid on those same earnings.)
When corporations start paying their fair share of the taxes on all income FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED we can drastically reduce our income tax rate on all corporations. 18% seems about right. Do that and foreign corporations will come flocking to US. We will be the world's tax haven.
4
You do realize that corporations do not pay taxes don't you? In the case of Burger King/Tim Horton deal it is only those people buying food at those places that pay the taxes. Thus that is the way of all corporations, they sell, we buy and the cost includes taxes.
1
The headline says it all about Obama - he wants to LURE the R's to negotiate rather than sitting down at a table and actually negotiating.
Obama hasn't a clue how to compromise or how to come to the middle. The sign of a competent leader, CEO or President of the USA is the ability to come to an agreement. Obama gets an F in this department.
Obama hasn't a clue how to compromise or how to come to the middle. The sign of a competent leader, CEO or President of the USA is the ability to come to an agreement. Obama gets an F in this department.
14
Republicans don't negotiate. Obama needs to propose a budget that benefits the middle class and let Republicans shoot it down.
7
And the republicans, who also don't want to negotiate, get a pass on this?
2
Attempting compromise is all that Obama has done for the last six years. That didn't work so he is now forced to take matters into his own hands. That is leadership.
1
America........lack of government stimulation and taxation based on backwards thinking ideas of "Austerity" and a preoccupation with debt and deficits has yielded a 2 percent annual growth rate of our economy.
China...........Chinese government activity that stimulates their robust manufacturing sector, government industry subsidies, City building and housing development, and protectionist trade policies has yielded an average 7 percent annual growth rate and unheard of prosperity.
I think I've explained well enough.
China...........Chinese government activity that stimulates their robust manufacturing sector, government industry subsidies, City building and housing development, and protectionist trade policies has yielded an average 7 percent annual growth rate and unheard of prosperity.
I think I've explained well enough.
3
China, unheard prosperity? 7% annual growth? Do not for a second believe the propaganda machine of the Chinese Communist Party.
2
It has also resulted in in unheard of pollution. You can't breathe the air in China and China is finally admitting that.
1
Actually, China is now quite the capitalist society ruled by a largely docile communist party in name only.
1
Here is the deal. Raise the fuel tax, eliminate the required union wages and streamline the process. Fix the roads and bridges and create new roads to improve our economy. Otherwise less spending not more, if we need some new programs other old ones need to be eliminated or other improvements made to pay for them. No exceptions.
23
Here's another "deal":
States like Tennessee stop grabbing more from the federal till than what they contribute so that blue states like New York can keep more of their own money and actaully repair infrastructure without the need for the feds to do so.
After all, you do advocate "less spending not more," so let Tennessee set the example.
Correct?
States like Tennessee stop grabbing more from the federal till than what they contribute so that blue states like New York can keep more of their own money and actaully repair infrastructure without the need for the feds to do so.
After all, you do advocate "less spending not more," so let Tennessee set the example.
Correct?
4
Cannot and must not eliminate the union livable wage. You allow the contactors and the government agencies to allow unqualified workers to repair roads and bridges,you are just asking for trouble.
3
Here is a counter proposal. Raise the fuel tax, increase taxes on business, protect union membership and expand it, set a $15/hr minimum wage, grant more money to develop non carbon based energy, help the poor and middle class people and if these are not paid for raise taxes even more and/or cut the increase that is in the budget.
2
Obama's Budget, like that of every President constitutes a wish list of everything he would like to have happen, hoping to get some of it. From my standpoint the little middle class tax cut being proposed is meaningless, I'd rather not have it, just as I'd rather not have had the Bush tax cut if the result is this constant crying poor about the nation's debts. I would be okay with a slight raise in the Social Security and Medicare taxes, so the whining about it running out of money for the next generation would just shut up, and for goodness sakes raise the cap to $150K income, at least on those that make more than $250K a year. Then maybe the country could invest to the future instead of just getting by. And employers-at least the mega employers, need to pay real salaries, we can't have growth with stagnant incomes that have essentially gone down for the last 30 years, the engine of growth is always the result of a well compensated working class. Not the shenanigans of Wall Street no matter what the number posted on the exchange.
14
The American government is completely dysfunctional because it has become impossible to find common ground. I feel for the few moderate republicans left who would like to find a way forward through compromise, but cannot do so for fear of losing their seat in congress, there is always someone further right than they are willing to challenge them.
The Democrats aren't just going to turn into Republicans nor should they have to. They too were elected by their constituents to represent their interests in the congress. There is no pressure left to bear on the President, so unless you can secure a 2/3 majority to override a veto, you are going to have to start working with him and the Democrats and not by saying our way or the highway.
The Democrats aren't just going to turn into Republicans nor should they have to. They too were elected by their constituents to represent their interests in the congress. There is no pressure left to bear on the President, so unless you can secure a 2/3 majority to override a veto, you are going to have to start working with him and the Democrats and not by saying our way or the highway.
89
And their highway is covered in potholes.
Major miscalculation. All the Republicans have to do is tread water for 2 more years, and then our nation will elect a Republican. The Republicans will fight hammer and tong to kill the ACHA (who is going to become even more unpopular when people find out then owe a penalty for not signing up), to stop illegal immigration and kill amnesty, increase the defense budget, and keep taxes from rising, and let Obama veto, veto, veto. Just as Obama sealed the fate of the Senate and the House with his lack of vision and leadership, so he'll seal the fate of the Presidency to a Republican. Bill Clinton learned to make peace and compromise; Obama has doubled down on polarization and the same failed ideas that got Dem's kicked out of Congress.
1
The same could be said of the Democrats who also want their way or the highway. You seem to think it is only a Republican problem when it is not.
2
The question concerning the "nuggets" in President Obama's budget is: Will the Republican anti-big-government, anti-Obama fiscal conservatives in the House of Representatives be willing to negotiate an end to sequestration? My guess is that they'll ask for offsetting cuts in social programs in line with the Paul Ryan budget to pay for any infrastructure repairs. That, of course, will quickly go nowhere. As a progressive Democrat, I hope I'm wrong. The country desperately needs an energy-efficient, high-speed rail system that can be used for commercial and military purposes as well as routine passenger transportation. This would allow us to compete with the Chinese and the Europeans while increasing our economic, environmental, and defense security by further reducing our dependence on Middle East oil as people drive and fly less. This would truly be the '21st-century infrastructure' to replace the Eisenhower-era National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and would arguably be the major legacy of the Obama Administration.
2
And just how would a high-speed rail system reduce our dependence on middle east oil? Such trains require energy and I would imagine far more than can be reliably generated by wind turbines and solar cells.
3
I am always struck by the dishonest nature of the Federal budget. The very concept of more for less is devoid in government. There are no metrics on performance, outcomes, service levels, or improved efficiency that are used to set priorities, reward performance and in general give the taxpayer some sense of value received. Instead, the government is forced to use soul depleting rhetoric to shame people into supporting its positions. If it's about military spending, it's unpatriotic to oppose as pictures of fallen/injured soldiers are on display, if you want to know where $50B goes to farming, the image of American Gothic and the disappearing family farm is evoked, medicare efficiency is a matter of old people being forced to eat cat food, tax increases are set against a background of the evil well-off who have climbed on the backs of ordinary citizens to horde and accumulate their ill gotten gains.
My reflexive position is to demand that our government truly demonstrate that it has done everything to make itself more efficient, serve the people better and show how our the $3.5 TRILLION of our money is well spent. Show me that you have made the investments into structural improvements, that you are firing the incompetent and rewarding the competent, that government is held to the same standard of care and service of the private sector. Sadly, Congress and the President will simply continue to obfuscate, tax more, spend more and leave the problems to our children.
My reflexive position is to demand that our government truly demonstrate that it has done everything to make itself more efficient, serve the people better and show how our the $3.5 TRILLION of our money is well spent. Show me that you have made the investments into structural improvements, that you are firing the incompetent and rewarding the competent, that government is held to the same standard of care and service of the private sector. Sadly, Congress and the President will simply continue to obfuscate, tax more, spend more and leave the problems to our children.
5
"My reflexive position is to demand that our government truly demonstrate that it has done everything to make itself more efficient, serve the people better and show how our the $3.5 TRILLION of our money is well spent."
Even the government loving NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to implement or expand, has said on numerous occasions that "government is ALWAYS inefficient and usually corrupt".
Even the government loving NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to implement or expand, has said on numerous occasions that "government is ALWAYS inefficient and usually corrupt".
3
Let's hope some of the president's plans get the parties to the table before the Tappan Zee snaps in full rush hour.
But I think the President is being clever here: a bold budget with little chance of passage except for the lures for people like Senator McCain. Our nation's problems are so pressing right now, that at some point, in some time, something's gotta give: our philosophy of kicking the can down the road is coming to an end on infrastructure, on tax reform, and on immigration.
That being the case, let's hope that saner, wiser, and more deliberate heads prevail that gives the president some of what he wants, and the Congress some of what they want too.
It's called compromise. A practice that's been ignored for far too long to our detriment.
But I think the President is being clever here: a bold budget with little chance of passage except for the lures for people like Senator McCain. Our nation's problems are so pressing right now, that at some point, in some time, something's gotta give: our philosophy of kicking the can down the road is coming to an end on infrastructure, on tax reform, and on immigration.
That being the case, let's hope that saner, wiser, and more deliberate heads prevail that gives the president some of what he wants, and the Congress some of what they want too.
It's called compromise. A practice that's been ignored for far too long to our detriment.
5
First, let me say that I am 100% in favor of immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship. If the Republicans do not address this issue, they are doomed to forfeit any chance of gaining the Hispanic vote.
However, I still object to anything but objective reporting supported by facts. I know of no objective analysis which supports the following statement in the article:
" the passage of a comprehensive immigration law that would lift the economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers."
This is an important factual representation.Yet, the article offers no reference whatsover to the data which might backup this statement. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive. Many of the millions of undocumented aliens here are already working, admittedly in the shadows of the economy. Next, it is job creation which would "lift the economy", not the availability of more workers. Without job creation, the availability of more workers increases the unemployment figures and the amounts paid for unemployment benefits and other assistance. That does anything but lift the economy. In fact, increasing unemployment and reliance on government assistance are the hallmarks of a failing economy.
Again, I fully support immigration reform. But, arguments which are either the opinion of the reporter or which are unsubstantiated undermine the credibility of those supporting reform. And, they insult the intelligence of readers.
However, I still object to anything but objective reporting supported by facts. I know of no objective analysis which supports the following statement in the article:
" the passage of a comprehensive immigration law that would lift the economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers."
This is an important factual representation.Yet, the article offers no reference whatsover to the data which might backup this statement. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive. Many of the millions of undocumented aliens here are already working, admittedly in the shadows of the economy. Next, it is job creation which would "lift the economy", not the availability of more workers. Without job creation, the availability of more workers increases the unemployment figures and the amounts paid for unemployment benefits and other assistance. That does anything but lift the economy. In fact, increasing unemployment and reliance on government assistance are the hallmarks of a failing economy.
Again, I fully support immigration reform. But, arguments which are either the opinion of the reporter or which are unsubstantiated undermine the credibility of those supporting reform. And, they insult the intelligence of readers.
5
Thank you. And since such "reform" without ENFORCEMENT of our laws, say, mandatory use of eVerify and the implementation of US VISIT, would lead to more illegal immigration, well, that should be done BEFORE any discussion of amnesty.
2
The poster child for the GOP immigration policy is the indicted ex-Congressman Michael Grimm. Besides other charges he was indicted for hiring undocumenteds to work in his restaurant, skirting labor and immigration laws. The GOP doesn't want any reform, they want to maintain the status quo. Make a lot of noise to satiate their base and do absolutely nothing. And propose un-serious ideas, like mass deportation.
It is the Obama administration that has implemented eVerify more than any other. The GOP speak nothing of eVerify. A lot of noise masks their real intention of doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. They need to pay the lowest possible price to have their lawns cut and dishes washed.
It is the Obama administration that has implemented eVerify more than any other. The GOP speak nothing of eVerify. A lot of noise masks their real intention of doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. They need to pay the lowest possible price to have their lawns cut and dishes washed.
1
If the Republicans ignore the budget in toto, it's to our own peril i.e. assuming that they will deign to read it. Knowing the Republican Congress, one can expect a blanket NO to everything including their Economist-in Chief, Paul Ryan. I use the TZ Bridge twice a day, and I always have a foreboding that I will go headlong into the Hudson. I wish the Republicans see the writing on the wall ( i.e. if they can read beyond their rhetoric)
4
If you are so concerned about the TZ bridge, shouldn't New Yorkers pay for it? Why should someone in California or Wyoming be concerned about it?
3
The cost of the new Tappen Zee bridge is estimated to be about $2.5Billion. That equals the cost of one nuclear submarine from General Dynamics, which we do not need. Even if the TZ cost $5Billion when done, I would rather we spend it on the bridge.
61
There are a lot of federal projects operating throughout the country. If we were to adopt your line of thinking, then only federal tax revenues collected from residents of Massachusetts should go to federally funded projects carried out in Massachusetts.
3
Why didn't President Obama propose these tax and spending increases when Democrats controlled Congress and these proposals stood a chance of passage? Why didn't President Obama propose these changes when Democrats controlled the Senate and there was some slight chance of passage? Proposing this now is political grandstanding by President Obama. He knows this won't pass, and he is just playing games.
139
In some form or other, he did. He also was dealing with the financial crisis.
7
Obama's 2010 and 2011 budgets passed under the Democratic Congress. These included tax cuts for the middle class. When the Republicans won the House in 2010, we had continuing resolutions and government shutdowns over Republicans' phony concern with deficits. Along with sequestration, these Republican policies held the economy down. This new-found obsession with deficits was not in evidence during the Reagan and Bush recoveries which were fueled by huge increases in government spending and big deficits.
8
Of course. He did not dare to bite the hand that fed him while the Democrats controlled congress because it was the monied liberal elites who got him elected in the first place.
He is just busy now creating a fictional presidential persona that he can point to later as his "legacy". What a sad joke.
He is just busy now creating a fictional presidential persona that he can point to later as his "legacy". What a sad joke.
1
Mr. Obama’s budget is packed with tax proposals almost certain to be ignored by Republicans.....measures to raise taxes on the rich and on big financial institutions would raise $958 billion over 10 years — almost $1 trillion if a measure to tax the fees of hedge fund and private equity managers as ordinary income is included - also known as 'carried interest exemption' tax welfare for millionaires, billionaires and Mitt Romney.
Tax welfare for millionaires is the entire Republican Party platform.
Give President Obama credit for trying to put an end to the carried interest abomination that symbolizes the moral turpitude of the IRS code and the 0.1% pirates who write the tax code and that fund the GOP kleptocracy.
Tax welfare for millionaires is the entire Republican Party platform.
Give President Obama credit for trying to put an end to the carried interest abomination that symbolizes the moral turpitude of the IRS code and the 0.1% pirates who write the tax code and that fund the GOP kleptocracy.
176
Even a card-carrying Democrat like myself can anticipate that the Republicans will label Obama's proposed budget as tax increases and irresponsible spending. They'll gloss over the fact that the tax increases affect the wealthy and the moderate spending now for infrastructure will save drastic spending later. Bottom line, this is the same old divisive stuff we're used to.
1
Carried interest can and should be eliminated as part of tax reform which shall not produce more income and shall keep tax burden for each group very close to equal. Simple!!! Now the president wants more taxes and he already won on that no further except for fuel tax for infrastructure only.
What is 'tax welfare for millionaires' exactly other than a clever phrase? Is it fair or unfair that the 1% contribute >40% of the federal revenue. Regardless of the answer its hardly welfare.
4
I for one am fine with paying more for social security. The republicans make a big to-do about not taxing the rich because the American dream is that one day you too could be ridiculously wealthy. While I doubt that I will ever be wealthy enough to benefit from those tax breaks, I do hope that one day I will be old enough to benefit from a society that takes care of its elderly.
123
No the American dream is that you have opportunity to be a success, not to be very rich because only a few will ever attain that. Our society takes care of its elderly, we spend a lot and in many ways too much for their health care.
3
I think that we agree. However, as I said, Republicans are often able to frame their tax cuts for the wealthy because that is what they are billing as the American dream (upward mobility - think of all of the rags to riches stories in the state of the union rebuttals). People go along with regressive tax codes because they hope that it might one day apply to them. But the version of the tax code, and our shared American dream, that I want is one that supports us now (in the middle class) and later (with social security). I am willing to pay for that, not just for present-me, but future-me, where future-me is the current generation of folks drawing social security. I think that for the sake of these arguments it is also prudent not to confound social security and medicare.
2
One of things I was taught early on was Jewish Martyrdom meant that if your choice was between your life and your beliefs you chose your life. As I watch the country south of mine unravel I realize it is Red States are definitely not a Jewish states. Given a choice between surviving in the 21st century or clinging on to the beliefs that saw it flourish in the 20th century the GOP has chose Martyrdom.
18
I suspect I'll get a lot of push back on this comment, from this crowd, but Obama should trade a hike in the minimum wage and immigration reform for approval Keystone pipeline. Maybe he can throw in higher auto efficiency standards while he's at it.
At oil less than $50, some now question the economic viability of the pipeline anyway. Further the oil will get to market one way or another (trucks or rail).
So take a red meat GOP issue and use it as a bargaining chip. That all being said, the authority over Keystone should rest with the president, so he should still veto the congressional bill which strips him of this authority.
At oil less than $50, some now question the economic viability of the pipeline anyway. Further the oil will get to market one way or another (trucks or rail).
So take a red meat GOP issue and use it as a bargaining chip. That all being said, the authority over Keystone should rest with the president, so he should still veto the congressional bill which strips him of this authority.
2
I live near the Tappan Zee Bridge, as referenced here, and hope that a replacement can be built soon, at least within half a decade. Years of repair to the existing structure have been inadequate to the severity of its problems and this is a major artery for NY state, NYC and New Jersey. We're looking at steep toll increases to offset the costs, and the least costly though least aesthetic model, but it's a necessity, not a luxury.
40
Are you sure you live by the Tappan Zee Bridge. The replacement bridge is currently being built now - kind of hard to miss it.
24
Hi Nyalman,
Yes, of course I've seen the (very) incipient replacement. I responded because it was referenced like a political negotiating point here. And you are probably also aware of the other considerations I specified. Take care.
Yes, of course I've seen the (very) incipient replacement. I responded because it was referenced like a political negotiating point here. And you are probably also aware of the other considerations I specified. Take care.
1
Multiply that one example by, oh, say 100,000 other bridges badly in need of repair across the country, countless water and electrical systems desperately needing unfunded maintenance, not to mention roads, dams, etc. etc., and you've got a small idea of the magnitude of what's needed. But the one consistent plank the GOP can be counted on to be part of their platform is, of course, "Tax Cuts". God help us.
8
I think it's more important for the GOP to give pithy one-liners than pass a budget.
-Pithy One Liner
-Pithy One Liner
16
I think it is way more important to pass not one budget but a detailed budget for every portion of the government, including headcounts by category. Sort of how a business does it.
3
We need to cut the bloat in the Pentagon. We need fewer generals. Yes, soldiers should get COLA raises every year, but we need less overhead expenses.
The immigration "overhaul" is a insult to every unemployed and to the millions of Americans stuck in precarious contingent jobs. The NY Times has documented the awful fate of part time workers and "independent contractors." I guess Obama does not want change for them.
The immigration "overhaul" is a insult to every unemployed and to the millions of Americans stuck in precarious contingent jobs. The NY Times has documented the awful fate of part time workers and "independent contractors." I guess Obama does not want change for them.
5
Something occurred to me while reading that tired old "tax & spend" line that for some reason I'd never thought of before:
Isn't a government's budget *by definition* taxing and spending? I mean, what else would it be?
Isn't a government's budget *by definition* taxing and spending? I mean, what else would it be?
123
I would say "nonexistent", but that wouldn't account for their persistent desire to hinder the wages and reproductive rights of women through government interference.
1
A "Tax and Spend" Democrat is much better than "Don't Tax and Still Spend" Republican.
5
Actually, for Republicans, the saying needs to be modified. Rather than "tax and spend" it should read "borrow and spend."
1
Knowing certain things will not be accepted by the Republicans, why is he wasting our time and our money with ideas like that?
He should be more accommodating to the wishes of Congress, not his personal agenda.
He just wants a fight for talking points in 2016.
He should be more accommodating to the wishes of Congress, not his personal agenda.
He just wants a fight for talking points in 2016.
13
He should be accommodating to the wishes of Congress, not his personal agenda. He is one of the 3 branches of the government, remember, "he" = the President. It's a give & take, not just a give.
4
"He just wants a fight for talking points in 2016."
Now that is rich. It was the not so grand GOP that fought Mr. Obama with talking points from the beginning of his inauguration until 2012, and with the same old tired ones since his overwhelming re-election for a second term.
Now that is rich. It was the not so grand GOP that fought Mr. Obama with talking points from the beginning of his inauguration until 2012, and with the same old tired ones since his overwhelming re-election for a second term.
52
Picture January of 2007, when the GOP had been bounced out of both houses, and GW Bush was a lame-duck. What if he announced that he was proposing more tax cutting, estate tax elimination, massive expansion of the Pentagon budgets, the repeal of corporate taxes, Federal bans on abortion, etc. Would anyone mention "waste of time"? Would there have been credible contemplation of such agenda? Our current president proves, yet again, that he'd rather posture than govern. Infamous for not being able to compromise, and notorious merely for unleashing eloquent vitriol on those who dare oppose him, it's no wonder he appeals only to hard lefty partisans. When Clinton was in the same position, he managed to move some legislation along, win reelection and still deploy some sort of realism. Obama is a lost cause. We'll see if it positions the 2016 Democratic candidate appropriately. I suspect it will not.
2
Its been stated elsewhere with the price of gas so low why not increase the gasoline tax for infrastructure rather than nickel and dime it into ruin. Obviously the grand sausage makers in Washington are busy grinding up items that effect the special interests first and foremost. Since they are the only ones who can get a congress persons ear.
5
Not mentioned in this article are the President's various proposals, recycled from his 2013 budget, to increase healthcare burdens on Medicare recipients. For some reason, President Obama, who aggressively seeks to shield younger Americans from healthcare induced bankruptcy, is perfectly willing to put the elderly at risk. These proposals of his should also be attractive to Republicans who have long fought to undo LBJ's program.
Medicare has no "maximum out of pocket limit" as do the subsidized health insurance plans in the ACA marketplaces. Standard Medicare part A and B beneficiaries pay 20% of all their health care needs, whether $200 or $20,000. Lucky elderly may have retiree benefits from an employer that will pick up some or all of the costs, but many do not.
For these people the best solution is to supplement standard Medicare, which also does not cover dental or vision, with plans like the one offered by AARP and United Health Care, which covers the 20% co-pay and allows seniors to seek the care they need without fear. These are the plans the President wants to target.
President Obama, given his willingness to cut Medicare here and there to cover other proposed benefits, will likely find common ground with Congress on this as well as on other issues near and dear to conservatives, like trade agreements and increasing the swollen Pentagon budget.
Medicare has no "maximum out of pocket limit" as do the subsidized health insurance plans in the ACA marketplaces. Standard Medicare part A and B beneficiaries pay 20% of all their health care needs, whether $200 or $20,000. Lucky elderly may have retiree benefits from an employer that will pick up some or all of the costs, but many do not.
For these people the best solution is to supplement standard Medicare, which also does not cover dental or vision, with plans like the one offered by AARP and United Health Care, which covers the 20% co-pay and allows seniors to seek the care they need without fear. These are the plans the President wants to target.
President Obama, given his willingness to cut Medicare here and there to cover other proposed benefits, will likely find common ground with Congress on this as well as on other issues near and dear to conservatives, like trade agreements and increasing the swollen Pentagon budget.
8
There will be only one side compromising. It won't be the Republicans. Why should they? Obama/Democrats give them what they want, anyway. That's because Democrats really don't believe in anything. And that's exactly what they fight for.
25
The growth in entitlements will dwarf all other spending. Given the Social Security out more than most people contribute and only $1 in $3 in medicare spending is funded by the payroll tax, there is not enough money in the 1% to do much about the hole we're digging.
No planned cuts couple with a complete absence of broad-based taxation that every other westernized country uses will sink us. And our lame politicians will comply with the AARP because that's where the vote are - self serving baby boomers who reject paying now for what they will demand in the future.
I for one will move back to Canada and miss this trainwreck. At least there, we're all in it together, higher taxes and all (and not a penny goes to the US because of tax treaties).
America the selfish, good riddance.
No planned cuts couple with a complete absence of broad-based taxation that every other westernized country uses will sink us. And our lame politicians will comply with the AARP because that's where the vote are - self serving baby boomers who reject paying now for what they will demand in the future.
I for one will move back to Canada and miss this trainwreck. At least there, we're all in it together, higher taxes and all (and not a penny goes to the US because of tax treaties).
America the selfish, good riddance.
6
Broad-based taxation? Our system is based on highly progressive income tax. The top 10% pay 65% of all Federal tax. The people in the bottom 90% like it that way, and would take serious offense if anyone proposed to tax them significantly.
It used to be different. Back in the 50s, factory workers with families to support paid 20% in Federal income tax. Of course, there was nearly no FICA, property tax, and state income tax then.
It used to be different. Back in the 50s, factory workers with families to support paid 20% in Federal income tax. Of course, there was nearly no FICA, property tax, and state income tax then.
6
Hey Matt what happens when the US decides no longer subsidize Canada's national defense? I too feel your frustration and dreamed ultimate solution but don't think for a second that Canada is self-sufficient and sustainable in its current form.
9
The top 10% in the USA own 85% of the financial wealth, and 51% of all other types of wealth: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. It is chrystal clear that they are not paying their share of taxes, especially since the middle and lower economic classes carry a larger share of state and local tax burdens.
8
I for one would like to see the phrase "entitlement spending" expanded to include the military-industrial complex and corporate welfare.
197
Not to mention subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agra, and Big Pharma...as well as supplementing the income of employees of minimum wage retail jobs at Walmart or Target and their ilk which benefits these corporations even more than the individuals on these supplements.
16
The Congress is dysfunctional and under the Republicans who hate Presidents guts nothing will be accomplished. Is there a way for the President to use more of his executive authority to pressure the Congress ?
9
Perhaps you should review the Separation of Powers clause.
6
How ridiculous! All those adults maneuvering to take a photo of .... a 3-inch thick budget. As if what it looks like on the outside is important. As if someone couldn't have supplied a few photos so all those people could get on to more important things.
I'm so glad someone cracked one of those babies open to they could tell us a bit of what's actually in it. Good grief.
I'm so glad someone cracked one of those babies open to they could tell us a bit of what's actually in it. Good grief.
5
Why on earth would we advocate increasing military spending by $38 billion? Every single wing of the federal government has learned how to accomplish more with less over the past seven years with the exception of the military, which remains obtusely inefficient in its approach to every aspect of its responsibilities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that increasing this funding will produce improved results, and there is every reason to believe that it won't.
95
All of yesterday's threats exist today.
Today's threats didn't exist yesterday.
Today's military budget needs to reflect that reality.
Today's threats didn't exist yesterday.
Today's military budget needs to reflect that reality.
1
Because it benefits the military industrial complex. The one budget item that is declared off limits. What would we do if we did not have a war every five years or so? Our military built economy would collapse. Since we have agreed to generous free trade agreements we have two options lock them up here to create prison construction and prison jobs and the other option is to start a war against whoever. Both are positive job generators. Sad!
2
Why? Because the USA is the most belligerent country on Earth.
1
how about a balanced budget with no deficit spending for a change?
This president has spent 7 trillion dollars in deficits in 6 years and the economy and labor market are still stuck in mud. Where are all the road improvements for the shovel ready jobs bill from 5 years ago...they weren't shovel ready.
This congress and president should cut 10% from every federal agency and cut the federal workforce through retirements..no layoffs for years to come.
The savings could go towards the entitlement crisis that will hit SS and medicare/aid.
This president has spent 7 trillion dollars in deficits in 6 years and the economy and labor market are still stuck in mud. Where are all the road improvements for the shovel ready jobs bill from 5 years ago...they weren't shovel ready.
This congress and president should cut 10% from every federal agency and cut the federal workforce through retirements..no layoffs for years to come.
The savings could go towards the entitlement crisis that will hit SS and medicare/aid.
14
Unfortunately, 62% of the budget is payments to or on behalf of individuals - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. That is very difficult to cut.
The president's budget reduces the deficit as a share of GDP, which is a plus. Recently, under Obama, deficits are already down. Your approach would require no decisions to be made regarding priorities. It would also be impossible to achieve politically. We live in a democracy.
5
No Republican administration ever has balanced the budget. Why demand that now? To undermine the Democrats and Obama. It is such hypocrisy on the part of Republicans.
5
Shocker - More tax and spend.
10
Republicans are the big spenders. The GOP voted in lockstep for (1) two wars (one based on lies) and put them on the credit card, (2) two large tax cut packages benefiting mostly the wealthy and large corporations, (3) a Medicare drug program that did not allow for the negotiation of drug prices and was a giveaway to Big Pharma, and (4) financial deregulation which led to the reckless and illegal behavior of those on Wall Street and the 2008 economic meltdown.
Who’s the Budget Hawk: Sanders vs Sessions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ9q0kP-LUA
Who’s the Budget Hawk: Sanders vs Sessions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ9q0kP-LUA
83
Gee, like taxes that are spent by the military? That is also "tax and spend."
15
I gather you are arguing that the President has budget proposals that his party will support, but that the Republicans will not support and, so, will not happen. And the President has budget proposals that his party will not support, but that the Republicans would support and turn into law but won't unless they can show they said no to other proposals (the ones the Democrats support). What a clever way to break the gridlock. The President gets the Republicans to pass the proposals they and he support (but the Democrats do not support) and the Democrats can't pass the things they support (the things the President may or may not support). Wouldn't it just be more honest to continue treating the President's budget proposal as dead on arrival?
3
The only budget change we need is to close the tax loopholes that allows the wealthiest to pay US$4.5 million for a 30-second advertisement during the super bowl then fly in on private jets to entertain "clients" in their corporate-owned private boxes and write it all off as business expenses. Of course, the same people own the media so they also profit from the advertising and promotion. And we wonder why there is unfathomable wealth inequality in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX#Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX#Advertising
104
The purpose of advertising is to get people to buy more, and is therefore a legitimate business expense. If you don't get that basic concept, it's little wonder that you misunderstand the world.
7
Buying adverts works? Why not ask Eric Cantor? He's got an opinion, for certain.
3
If it helps the middle class Republicans will be against it . That is why we have a democratic president. Republican's so naive they believe in trickle down economics. The GOP knows it's a lie.
2