Record Budget Deficits:
From CNN.com:
The federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion in 2008 as a housing collapse and efforts to combat the economic slowdown pushed the tide of government red ink to the highest level in history. . . .
Some analysts believe that next year's deficit could easily top $700 billion, giving the next president a formidable challenge.
Yeah, in fact the only challenge the next President faces is exactly how much to cut taxes in order to increase revenue by $700 billion to balance the budget.
This is sarcastic, by the way, as I assume the Reagan comment was.
May I ask what this means? I don't follow.
Please provide a credible source or issue a retraction.
I also he did say that his desire to raise the capital gains tax wasn't about raising revenue but making things fair.
See here.
Quote: OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
BTW one of the reasons defined benefit pensions are no longer offered by corporations, is the feds forced companies into using accrual accounting so that future pension benefits must appear on their balance sheets. They can longer pretend this obligations don't exist.
Note that Obama is planning yet more spending a giant scale. Where will the money come from? From taxing the rich of course. Never mind the arithmetic won't add up. McCain might even be worse. He wants a big tax cut that will make the threat of inflation worse. Both candidates want to print money to fund their programs.
Question: If printing money is the answer then why isn't Zimbabwe rich?
Just curious, did you support the invasion of Iraq?
Because I never understand why people who rail against "spending" don't seem to mind spending hundreds of billions (trillions in the long run) to invade other countries for no good reason.
Never mind the hundreds of billions we give to the military every year in addition to war spending.
The government is using many of the exact same creative technniques that Enron used, with exactly the same result.
Look what happened when a small portion of SOX actually worked - they immediately demanded that the section that required property be valued at the market be rescinded.
And there was much rejoicing.
This is because of the Laffer Curve which is not only proven, but obvious in it's application to this situation! Plus the commerce clause I wrote in my Constitution of Awesome wants the deficit to be low.
Thus, until taxes are zero, the giant deficit we experience is cause taxes can sill be lowered!
I, for one, was against invading Iraq, but feel that since we did so we need to keep going and get it to a solvent state before we pull out. This, along with the War on Terror, is why we had huge spending.
Needless to say, Congress went along with all of this.
Regarding higher or lower taxes and fairness...what do I get for my (higher) tax dollars? When I buy a sack of tomatoes don't I pay the same as the other guy? I don't recall going to the supermarket and paying a percentage of my salary for the sack of tomatoes. More so, I don't recall paying 25% of my salary for the first tomato, 28% for the second, 32% for the third, etc.
Why is it fair for me to pay more in whole dollars for my government 'tomato' than the other guy?
Taxes was never an issue for me (I'm a gun nut) until I felt insulted by Obama and others claiming I'm not paying my 'fair share'.
I do not believe it is fair that for the majority of Americans who earn their living through actual work, they enter the 25% tax bracket at $32,550 if single ($65,100 married filing jointly), but those who earn their living selling appreciated securities pay no more than 15% on capital gains -- especially since hedge fund managers' salaries is counted as capital gains. Barack Obama is right. This is not fair. Capital gains tax rate should be equalized with earned income tax rates, or at least the two taxes should be brought closer together.
The US already taxes capital gains more heavily than most other countries. Many don't tax capital gains at all. Wikipedia
The CBO rules will only require mark-to-market deficit calculations when generally advantageous to the incumbent majority.
Note that Obama is planning yet more spending a giant scale. Where will the money come from?
Amusing to put these two quotes next to each other. Obama can spend more lavishly than any president prior to the current one and still look downright frugal next to GW Bush.
A very few tax capital gains like normal income, like Estonia, Russia, and Thailand. Most countries have an explicit capital gains rate and it is treated more favorably than other income, especially for long-term gains.
Again, the link: Wikipedia
"Amusing to put these two quotes next to each other. Obama can spend more lavishly than any president prior to the current one and still look downright frugal next to GW Bush."
Other than the Iraq war, which is off budget, I'm not aware of any of the Bush spending that Obama would oppose. He voted for the bailout didn't he? He's running under an expansion of government from Bush not a contraction.
Taxing capital gains like ordinary income has economic consequences-- it will change the way capital is allocated. For one thing people will buy more tax-free municipal bonds and less corporate bonds. This will increase the cost of capital to companies and negatively affect the economy. People make investment decisions on a risk-adjusted return to capital basis. Change taxes and you change the risk tolerance. Who wants to take a big risk for a small after tax return.
The return on pretty much any risk-free investment is taxed as ordinary income. For example, zero-coupon Treasury bonds. Every year you pay tax on an "imputed income" even though you have collected a cent. Go check the IRS regs on "original discount issues."
Of course there are some giveaways in the tax code (like hedge fund managers). So go fix those problems. Some people are just uncomfortable with capitalism and really want some kind of command economy where income and wealth are alloted on a political basis. The feminist arguments for administered salaries on the basis of "comparable worth" is a good example.
Hypothetical national debt: $700,000,000,000
See IRS, Individual Income Tax Returns Bulletin (2007), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in01ar.xls.
So...
A one-time tax on individual income of about 10.2% should fix the national debt. Who's in?
And many of them impose other taxes that we do not impose.
The national debt is well in excess of $700b.
A trillion dollars off the books makes quite a difference. Does anyone believe that the same expenditures would have been approved if they were submitted as part of the regular budgetary process?
Oh well, if it's off-budget then no problem.
Whether you support Iraq or not, waging war is part of the constitutional job description given the federal government in the constitution.
Waging war is also not an entitlement program-at some point the budgetary allotment is expected to go away.
Obama wants to create some kind of healthcare plan-which will be a huge entitlement and once entered on the books will never go away.
Obama has also said at least once and his running mate at least once that they think military involvement in Sudan is warranted as is some kind of surge like policy for Afghanistan. Do you think war with Sudan or in Afghanistan won't cost anything?
I agree, there isn't anything Bush has spent money on that Obama wouldn't spend money on, and Obama wants to spend even more.
McCain isn't perfect either. But at least he considers some kind of control on spending to be warranted, Obama doesn't seem to een think that.
Whether you support Iraq or not, waging war is part of the constitutional job description given the federal government in the constitution.
Waging war is also not an entitlement program-at some point the budgetary allotment is expected to go away.
Obama wants to create some kind of healthcare plan-which will be a huge entitlement and once entered on the books will never go away.
Obama has also said at least once and his running mate at least once that they think military involvement in Sudan is warranted as is some kind of surge like policy for Afghanistan. Do you think war with Sudan or in Afghanistan won't cost anything?
I agree, there isn't anything Bush has spent money on that Obama wouldn't spend money on, and Obama wants to spend even more.
McCain isn't perfect either. But at least he considers some kind of control on spending to be warranted, Obama doesn't seem to een think that.
Waging war is also not an entitlement program-at some point the budgetary allotment is expected to go away."
That is not how the world works. The defense industry, and certain the Blackwater-Cheney-Halliburton wing of it, certainly look upon their war fighting no-bid cost-plus guaranteed-profit performance-or-not contractual budgetary allotments as entitlements.
You're missing the point. BHO has no problem with large government expenditures, and he had no way of knowing the cost of the war would escalate the way it did. He initially opposed the war on ideological, not fiscal grounds.
The "off budget" part pertains to the one-time nature of a war expense. It's not an on-going problem, although it seems that way sometimes.
And, to the humanitarians among you, some consideration of the horrors of the sanctions regime may be of interest.
Not to say that the wars cost wouldn't have been much lower had we done it the right way - with the unmerciful lethality that our outstanding military forces can bring to bear on any problem, provided they are given the political leeway to use it. But those of you complaining about the cost - with the above context - probably wouldn't have supported _that_ either.
The problem is if Obama actually tries to implement all his promised programs he's gonna make Bush look frugal.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.