Obamas deficit reduction plan

[BBSA]

Found this on Robert Kiyosaki blog:

Question:

Recently read an article on Yahoo! ("Key from the speech: What's in Obama's deficit reduction plan?") where Obama claims to have a solid deficit reduction plan.

Among other ideas, his plan includes the following (paraphrased): An end to the Bush tax cuts for the 2 percent of Americans making $250,000 or more, and tax reform aimed at closing loopholes that favor the rich, allowing for a lowering of overall rates.

My question is this: What benefits and drawbacks do you notice in these allegedly planned changes?

Answer:

Tax code of nearly every developed country is philosophically the same. Meaning, while the various laws and codes differ, the motive behind them is identical.

Simply put, the purpose of the tax code is to motivate people to do what the government wants them to do.

So, the reason real estate has such great tax benefits is because the government wants investors to build and maintain affordable housing. The reason why there are so many "loopholes" for the rich is because they encourage business spending and expansion, another thing the government wants.

In the end, Obama's plan to shore up the deficit shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tax code motivates people and the philosophy behind the tax code, not just in America but also in every other developed country.

As you point out, part of Obama's deficit reduction plan is to raise taxes on the "rich" and closing loopholes. The problem is that many people who make $250,000 or more per year are small business owners who rely on tax cuts to stay in business and provide jobs. And the "loopholes" he speaks of are actually incentives to motivate investors and businesses to do what the government wants such as spending on real estate and business investment.

To me, it doesn't make sense to penalize those who produce goods, build businesses, and provide jobs with higher taxes in the name of deficit reduction. And the implications could be massive if the proposed increases de-incentivize investors and businesses from expanding their holdings. In the end, it could be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The increased government revenue could result in a lower GDP and downward pressure on the economy.

While lower taxes for the middle and lower class would be a nice gesture, the reality is that these are not the people who produce for our economy. And the limited spending savings in their taxes would produce not make up for the lost business and investing activities by the rich.

In the end, true deficit reduction will only come when the US government gets serious about our unfunded liabilities like Social Security and Medicare. Currently, there is no substantive proposal to address these coming financial catastrophes, which according to the National Center for Policy Analysis are project to consume the entire Federal budget by 2050.

In the end, all talk about deficit reduction that doesn't substantially address the looming financial crisis of unfunded liabilities is simply like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that requires stiches. True financial healing won't come until we suck it up and go through the painful process of true economic surgery.

Some good points Robert is making!

 

[Cloudster]

Found this on Robert Kiyosaki blog:

Question:



Answer:



Some good points Robert is making!

But this has been Americas approach to fixing their financial problems all along?

As it stands, they will never ever be able to payback their total debt anyway ... so why stop now? It's worked out pretty well for them so far.

 

[Alan]

Obama's becoming more of a joke every passing day. Now suddenly he's preaching cuts when he'd just released his budget for 2011 in Feb that set a record deficit. Sad thing is despite Obama's poll ratings falling to record lows many people are still falling for this BS.

 

[w1z4rd]

I think Jon Stewart covers this issue the best:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-april-12-2011-governor-deval-patrick (the bit you wanna watch is in the first 10 min)

The basic differences between the Dems and the Reps in regards to their deficit plans is that Reps wanna cut costs on Healthcare (this is to support special interest health insurance profits), and the Dems wanna stop the tax cuts to the super wealthy. The dems plan will help the deficit more than the Republicans plan. The Republicans plan is to protect the tax cuts for the super wealthy and take the money out of healthcare and teachers.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-14-2011/slashdance---democratic-deficit-reduction-plan

 

[Fazda]

I think Jon Stewart covers this issue the best:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-14-2011/slashdance---democratic-deficit-reduction-plan

The basic differences between the Dems and the Reps in regards to their deficit plans is that Reps wanna cut costs on Healthcare (this is to support special interest health insurance profits), and the Dems wanna stop the tax cuts to the super wealthy. The dems plan will help the deficit more than the Republicans plan. The Republicans plan is to protect the tax cuts for the super wealthy and take the money out of healthcare and teachers.

This is the best way to see the difference between the Republican plan and the Dem plan at odds against each other:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-april-12-2011-governor-deval-patrick

+1

 

[Alan]

Oh no lame comedians again.....

So why didn't the Dems end the Bush tax cuts when they were power?

Left are simply resorting to fearmongering again....

* Republicans want to starve senior citizens to death via the budget;
* Republicans are waging a war against women;
* The Republican budget is carpet-bombing innocent DC civilians (figuratively, because as far as I can tell, DC has not, as of the time of this writing, been carpet bombed as a result of the GOP budget position);
* The Republicans are starting a second civil war via the budget process.

What happened to toning down the rhetoric after the Arizona shooting :erm:

 

[w1z4rd]

Oh no lame comedians again....

I love how people around the world trust that comedian for news more than any news outlet you could imagine. LOVE IT! A comedian has more credibility.. hahaha.

 

[Alan]

I note you ignored my question. I wonder why :erm:

 

[w1z4rd]

Most Americans approve of the Dems method over the Republican method. Something like 80% of Americans are in favor of super wealthy no longer getting their tax cuts and roughly the same number are against money coming outta healthcare: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...achmann-obama-birth-certificate_n_851529.html (The polls are quoted in the ABC video half way down the page)

 

[Alan]

Still haven't answered the question....

 

[w1z4rd]

I note you ignored my question. I wonder why :erm:

Its pretty obvious, the only way they could get Healthcare passed was having to give the Republicans a victory. Healthcare was held for ransom basically by a bunch of super wealthy thugs. Unfortunately the Republicans were happy to shaft common Americans for a couple more years and the only way Obama could pass healthcare was by getting Republican support. So they negotiated for the tax cuts to continue for a while. Those tax cuts are going to go in Obama`s 2nd term. Promise. Of course if you had retard blinkers on you would have totally missed this.

Let me quote wiki for you:

At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]

When I actually first heard the argument, "why did the Dems not reduce the tax cuts when they were in power".... by a Republican on Fox... I thought to myself, "you slimey evil mother fker".

 

[grayston]

Its pretty obvious, the only way they could get Healthcare passed was having to give the Republican a victory. Healthcare was held for ransom basically by a bunch of super wealthy thugs. Unfortunately the Republicans were happy to shaft common Americans for a couple more years and the only way Obama could pass healthcare was by getting Republican support. So they negotiated for the tax cuts to continue for a while. Those tax cuts are going to go in Obama`s 2nd term. Promise. Of course if you had retard blinkers on you would have totally missed this.

Dude, you haven't answered the question about robbing Peter to pay Paul!

PLEASE SOMEBODY THINK OF PETER!

Enjoy your weekend, folks. Remember to take a break from the computer!

 

[w1z4rd]

Still haven't answered the question....

You are not a priority. Ill respond when I want to and have the time to respond. Its now answered. This is the part where you find completely unrelated news clippings... tell us how much the Dems suck and then go on supporting a blatantly manipulative and corrupt Republican party. Over to you Alan, time for your apologetic magic.

 

[Alan]

*facepalm*

Yet again you are completely misinformed. Obamacare was passed without a single senate Republican vote. There was no compromise since none was needed.

So why did they not raise taxes on the rich?`There was nothing stopping them. After all this is the solution to the deficit problem according to them. Yet they passed Obamacare which will add another trillion dollars of debt and raise taxes on the middle class.

They amassed record amounts of spending but never bothered to raise the money to pay for it. That's exactly the typical liberal irresponsibility that's ran countries like Greece and Portugal into the ground.

EDIT: I see posts have been edited. Still your attempts fail. You still never actually answered the question.

 

[Alan]

Obama is sending the country down the same road to bankruptcy as California....

When California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom begins meetings in Austin with Hardee’s hamburgers chief Andrew Puzder, local Chamber of Commerce Chairman Bobby Jenkins and Texas Governor Rick Perry, it’s because the most- populous state lingers in a funk, even as the U.S. pulls out of the deepest recession in half a century.

The world’s eighth-largest economy has lagged in job growth since California-based lenders such as Countrywide Financial Corp. led America into the housing bust. Unemployment in the state is 12.2 percent, more than a third higher than the national average. While signature industries such as technology, trade and tourism have rebounded, construction and government employment are weak or falling.

Newsom is one of two California Democrats in the talks starting today on how the Lone Star State created 165,000 jobs over the past three years, while California, with the country’s largest workforce, lost 1.15 million, according to the trip’s organizer, Assemblyman Dan Logue, a Republican from Linda.

While Governor Jerry Brown replied “Hell, no,” when asked whether Texas is a better state for business April 6, he’s supporting the mission.

“Let’s get more jobs, more businesses,” Brown, a 73-year- old Democrat, said April 8. “Some of our state legislators are going to Texas to find out how they’re doing. Gavin Newsom’s going with them. I’m waiting for his report, when he gets back, and if he has any good ideas, I’m going to share them with you.”
Holding Back Recovery

California is holding back the national recovery, said Esmael Adibi, director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University in Orange, near Los Angeles. He estimates the state may create as few as 130,000 jobs this year, well below the 200,000 that its population would dictate as its share of national employment growth.

The Golden State’s unemployment rate “is more intractable than folks want to acknowledge,” said Austin Beutner, a former investment banker who heads economic development for Los Angeles, the nation’s second most-populous city. “I think we’ve got a longer way to go than we might have thought two years ago.”

Comerica Bank’s California Economic Activity Index, which tracks nine factors such as employment and consumer spending, fell in February, the company reported today. The index has been little changed since July after rising 14 percent from its low in March 2009. Comerica’s Texas index is at the highest level in two years, and up 5 percent from the average for all of 2010, according to a report April 13.
Public Job Cuts

California’s budget deficit raises the prospect of further reductions among public workers. Brown, struggling to close a $15.4 billion spending gap for the fiscal year starting July 1, broke off negotiations with Republican lawmakers last month and is on a statewide tour to win voter support for $11.3 billion in proposed tax extensions.

Without that revenue, the state may have to “cut, slash and burn” education, health-care, police and fire services, Brown said April 8 at an elementary school in Riverside, California. Reducing public-school spending in the same proportion as other state departments would mean firing 99,000 teachers or eliminating two months of the school year, according to the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...or-job-recipe-with-growth-trading-places.html

Americans have a choice. European style government with a massive public sector funded by high taxes run by a handful of elites and their union thug henchmen that Obama advocates. The result of which we see in bankrupt stagnated California...

OR

The small government, low tax, private sector orientated economy system as seen in Republican controlled Texas which is booming...

Seems people are already voting with their feet...

And Americans have been voting for Texas with their feet. From 2000 to 2009, some 848,000 people moved from other parts of the United States to Texas, about the same number as moved in from abroad. That inflow has continued in 2008-09, in which 143,000 Americans moved into Texas, more than double the number in any other state, at the same time as 98,000 were moving out of California. Texas is on the way to gain four additional House seats and electoral votes in the 2010 reapportionment.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/low-tax-texas-beats-big-government-california#ixzz1KAc286SL

 

[w1z4rd]

*facepalm*

Yet again you are completely misinformed. Obamacare was passed without a single senate Republican vote. There was no compromise since none was needed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...lone-republican-who-voted-for-healthcare-bill

There is more than just the senate...

Even without Healthcare, the reason why the tax cuts were not given were pasted in my previous post in BIG BOLD LETTERS so you would be able to read it clearly. So several more times for you to read clearly...

At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]

 

[w1z4rd]

rubbish

Right sunshine... sure, we all ganna die. Run for the hills. Etc yada yada blah blah blah.

 

[Alan]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...lone-republican-who-voted-for-healthcare-bill

There is more than just the senate...

He voted for the draft not the final bill according to wiki.

Not a single republican in the congress or senate voted for the final bill.

What's he doing in the party of supposed white racists anyway

 

[w1z4rd]

He voted for the draft not the final bill according to wiki.

Not a single republican in the congress or senate voted for the final bill.

What's he doing in the party of supposed white racists anyway

At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[29] All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]

 

[Alan]

Well since you didn't know the difference between the bank bailout and the stimulus bill it's asking too much of you to know why the dems didn't raise taxes when they had the opportunity.

You keep harping on a deal that was done after the dems lost their filibuster proof majority and were hammered in the 2010 election.

Perhaps somebody else could offer a viable explanation