White House lists some proposed cuts in 2011 budget

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will propose cutting or changing some 120 items in his budget for fiscal 2011 that will help save $20 billion this year, the White House said on Saturday.

Obama, who on Monday presents his budget proposals for the fiscal year starting October 1, has promised to tackle record deficits by initiating a spending freeze on some domestic programs and eliminating programs that are redundant.

The White House gave a preview of some of those cuts in a statement published on its blog on Saturday.

One of the proposals would eliminate the "Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit," which allows eligible taxpayers with children to get a portion of the a tax credit paid out in their paychecks throughout the year.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60T21S20100130?type=politicsNews

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tridim]

3. Mike Pence? Is that you?

:rofl:

[BumRushDaShow]

4. "We are bankrupting this country with spending..."

that was courtesy of the borrow and spend rightwing lunatics who ran this country into the ground for the past decade, SPENDING money on 2 idiotic wars and SPENDING money on tax break welfare for the greedy rich. :eyes:

Raise the highest tax rate up to 70% and solve the problem.

[bossy22]

6. don't totally agree

i don't like the idea of punishing people because they are rich. Some people do work very hard to get to the points they are in (and some don't)...i think the top income tax should be put back to how it was under clinton (repeal those tax cuts). That would bring in an extra $400 billions

the wars only cost us about $100 billion a year (a total federal deficit is 1.4 trillion)

plus i wrote in another post that social security needs to be addressed in the future if we want to ever get our longterm budget issues under control. I'd like to see the age at which you can recieve benefits raised by 5 years across the board. IIRC the age hasnt been changed since its inception back the 1930's. At that point the avg American life-span was about 60 years....today its close to 80. People are living and working longer.

[glinda]

8. Then cut all the freebee write offs to them. Others do not qualify.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Bullshit - they top 1% paid over 55% until Ronnie Rayguns

and the working class has been taking the "Hit" ever since

Time the Top 1% started paying their fair share

[rayofreason]

26. Here are the real numbers...

The rich pay most of the taxes

http://treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648

But the overall tax rate for all taxpayers is at historically low levels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html

So any tax increase will require a broad percentage increase on middle income people, and there lies the problem.

I personally prefer the Fair Tax, which taxes consumption, not income. People who consume a lot should pay the most tax, and "sheltering" income or not reporting it won't matter - if you want benefit from your money by buying things, you will pay tax on it. Of course, a fair "Fair Tax" requires payments to all taxpayers to offset the consumption tax on say the first $40K for a family of four to remove the regressive nature of such a tax on lower income folks.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Most politicians hate the Fair Tax because it means that they cannot use the tax code to get advantages for their buddies, and losing that power would block off all the current opportunities for graft and extorting political contributions from special interests. And the lawyers really hate the idea of the Fair Tax, which is a huge argument in its favor.

[FreakinDJ]

28. The REAL numbers are LESS Economic Growth

Ronald RayGun's Tax Cuts as well as Bush's Tax Cuts have been attributed with causing LESS Economic Growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RktEEazXVY8

FairTax / Flat Tax has been a rube and will be manipulated by corporations to lessen their share of taxation.

And Corporate Tax Cuts cut growth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxk4UA1p3Sc

[rayofreason]

30. You are correct that...

...income inequality has grown from 1979-2006

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/average_before-tax_income.pdf

Interestingly, it looks like the increase in inequality during the Clinton years was as big as the increase in inequality during the Reagan years. However, the data clearly show that from 1979-2006 the tax system has become more progressive.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf

Everybody's tax burden decreased, and the lowest quintile's decreased more. But coupled with the increase in income inequality, the after tax inequality increased as shown in the youtube link you sent. So the reality is a complex one and the question is what should be the response of public policy to the large and unsustainable structural deficits we have? A simplistic "make the rich pay a fair share" is untenable because they paying a fair share in a low tax environment. Again, I think that taxing consumption (fair tax) as a replacement to taxing income is the way to go. We would encourage saving, which would spur investment, long-term economic growth, and jobs. I really don't see a clear way out without a major restructuring of the tax code that breaks the collusion between politicians and special interests. After all, for nearly 30 years the trend has been the same, regardless of administration, and the structural deficits get worse. I take that to indicate that band-aids won't and that a wholesale rethinking of how we collect taxes is in order.

[beardown]

13. How about punishing people because they aren't rich

Poor people get punished systematically because they don't have good legal representation and they can't buy congress people to make laws that make their thefts legal. How many rich bankers and Wall St investment people are in jail for stealing trillions of dollars? How about punishing the troops because rich oil companies and media corporations drum up support to invade other nations that happen to sit on our oil?

Rich people who owe everything to the government's systems and the poor peoples' work and sacrifices are so far down my list of punishment sufferers as to be off the radar. It's the classic case of Bush pushing it's a honor to die for your country and an unbearable burden to pay taxes to it.

Rich people aren't necessarily evil or deserve to be sent to the head chopper, but they are only carrying a tiny piece of the burden that moves and drives this nation and the world and until the tax rate gets back to around 75 percent for rich folks that sit on their money like Scrooge McDuck, instead of putting it back into work for the good of the nation and the citizens that fight and die in the trenches I won't shed a tear for them and allocate all of my concern for enduring punishment to the poor, working poor, middle class, and troops.

[Iowa]

16. Regarding Social Security...

"plus i wrote in another post that social security needs to be addressed in the future if we want to ever get our longterm budget issues under control. I'd like to see the age at which you can recieve benefits raised by 5 years across the board. IIRC the age hasnt been changed since its inception back the 1930's. At that point the avg American life-span was about 60 years....today its close to 80. People are living and working longer."

I disagree. The Social Security Trust Fund is sound. There are enough treasury bonds in the fund, so that when combined with incoming contributions, the system will be able to cover full benefits until 2037. After that, benefits would need to be reduced by ~25% if nothing is done. So some modest tweaking is needed to ensure that the system remains viable far into the future. Raising the age by 5 years across the board seems excessive. Furthermore, you're presuming that the future will mimic the past. The U.S. is in decline. Standards of living are dropping like a rock. The corporate health-care system is in a shambles with no relief in sight. Obesity is endemic and the safety of our food and drugs has largely been turned over to the corps. Climate change is on the horizon. Oil is running out... Looking forward, it would probably be more reasonable to presume that life expectancy will decline - perhaps even significantly.

But the primary point I want to make is this: Ideologically, progressives should oppose any attempt to address federal "budget issues" (to use your words) via Social Security. Federal budget deficits have been run repeatedly and deliberately for the direct benefit of the plutocracy, the corps, and the MIC, while the real income and standard-of-living of average working people has plunged. When the time comes to pay the piper, the plutocrats who benefited from all those budget deficits will be cranking up the propaganda machine in an effort to raid Social Security to pay for their excesses. To that I say NO-FUCKING-WAY.

The bonds in the trust fund were put there via the blood-sweat-and-tears of waitresses, ditch-diggers, teachers, firemen, nurses aides, social workers, and retail clerks... The SS system probably does need to be tweaked modestly so the system remains strong far into the future, but it does NOT need to be altered to deal with federal budget issues. Fuck that. The right has been trying to convince everyone that SS is somehow responsible for the deficit/debt (it's not). They are trying to set generation against generation. This is all an attempt to renege on the bonds in the SS Trust Fund so they can continue sucking down tax dollars. The government cannot default on those bonds unless the people allow it to happen. The FDR generation would have flayed them alive for even considering it. Unfortunately, many of those folks are dead and gone, and we're left with many who will fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If they get by with it, it will be one of the biggest heists in history.

Bottom line: The system needs some modest tweaks... just enough to address the actuarial issues - nothing more. Ditch-diggers and waitresses shouldn't be required to work one day more than will be necessary to fix the long-term actuarial issues. Fixing federal budget issues is a whole other issue that is best addressed by progressive taxation as well as cuts in spending - especially military spending.

[twitomy]

19. "There are enough treasury bonds in the fund"

The problem is; where is the govt going to get the money to pay back those bonds?

The govt wrote IOUs to itself; basically raided the fund's cash and put these IOU's in its place.

Its getting time to cash in those bonds so they can continue to send out the SS checks.

[Iowa]

27. I wouldn't frame the issue that way...

I'll address your questions/comments one by one:

"The problem is; where is the govt going to get the money to pay back those bonds?

They'll find the money to honor their debt to American workers in the same place they'll find the money to pay back what they borrowed from wealthy investors who own treasury securities.

"The govt wrote IOUs to itself; basically raided the fund's cash and put these IOU's in its place."

This is how the right-wing frames the issue - don't fall for it. Don't buy into the lie that the treasury securities in the SS trust fund are some type of junk bonds, or that they are inferior in some way to other treasury securities. That's a false portrayal designed to undermine the SS system. The SS trust fund contains treasury bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasury securities are viewed by investors as the most conservative and secure investments on the planet. There's nothing wrong with those investments.

"Its getting time to cash in those bonds so they can continue to send out the SS checks."

This is true. But that's not the problem of the Social Security system. The SS system is sound. Some modest tweaks are needed to address actuarial issues that will result in reductions in payments ~30 years down the road (if nothing is done). Beyond that, NOTHING needs to be done to "fix" Social Security. The problem lies with worthless politicians who continue to squander money to pay for wars, bankers, corporate welfare, and tax-cuts for their corporate buddies. That's the problem. Social Security is a reasonably well run enterprise that has behaved responsibly, and because it has been managed responsibly, it just happens to have a massive amount of treasury securities in the trust fund which are needed to fund the retirements of its contributors. It is not the responsibility of the SS system to fix the nation's budgetary problems. So leave Social Security out of it. That's a whole other issue that needs to be addressed (and addressed fast). There are countless ways to address budgetary issues... things like ending wars about nothing, repealing tax-cuts the nation cannot afford, a return to progressive taxation, single-payer health care, negotiated drug prices for Medicare, cuts in military spending, and on and on... You don't solve your budgetary issues by reneging on your debts. And you sure as hell don't renege on the debts owed to one group (American workers) while continuing to pay debts owed to the investor class. That's what the right-wing is pushing; no progressive should buy into it.

[JDPriestly]

18. There are a couple of problems with raising the Social Security age

1) Although older people are actually good workers and on the whole very reliable, many folks starting at around 60 years old develop physical conditions that slow them down and make them a little less efficient at work. Arthritis, for example, often becomes kind of a problem in the early 60s. Exercise helps, but repetitive motions of the kinds that a lot of jobs in involve become more difficult. Also, changes, not all for the worse, in cognitive ability are frequent in older individuals.

2) There is an incredible amount of age discrimination out in the working world. It is terrible and difficult to believe, but older people have trouble getting and keeping jobs.

I for one had planned on working until I was at least 70. I learned, however, that that goal is not realistic at all.

Too bad. I would have loved to continue working and earning a living. I would have loved to delay in taking Social Security.

So, bossy22, your solution sounds good, but it would not work in a lot of cases.

[Tansy_Gold]

23. The age for eligibility HAS BEEN CHANGED

I have a difficult time believing people who don't check the most basic facts when they're spouting nonsense.




Tansy Gold

[BumRushDaShow]

20. If you look at

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php">top tax rates through to the last change in 2003, you can track that to what preceded and triggered the "great depression" and this current "great recession".

In 1988, the lowest bracket (11%) was RAISED to 15% in order to underhandedly justify taking the highest rate (at the time recently dropped from 50% to 38.5%) down to 28%. Raygun's original goal was to eventually go to 25% flat tax. This idiocy eventually forced Poppy to have to finally raise the top rate back up a bit to 31%, as the race to gouge the bottom hadn't brought in enough revenue. Spending billions and billions over the last 3 decades on folly wars meant the gutting of the domestic agencies that protected U.S. citizens from toxic toys, contaminated food and water, and crumbling infrastructure, thus justifying the rightwing lunatic fringe meme about how government "doesn't work".

In September 2006, for the first time in history, http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/21/americas-400-richest-biz_cx_mm_06rich400_0921richintro.htm">all 400 (and more) of the Forbes 400 were billionaires, underscoring how far askew the regressive tax policies had gone. A mere 6 months later in March 2007, there were http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/06/billionaires-new-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billieintro.html">nearly 1000. By 2008, the number http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/richest-billionaires-people-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305intro.html">topped 1100.

When you have the 2nd wealthiest man in the world admitting (and insisting) that he and his compatriots should be paying more taxes, then something has gone terribly wrong. Warren Buffet doesn't have to spend 30% of his http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Warren-Buffett_C0R3.html">$37 billion worth (which happens to be http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/buffett-worlds-richest-cx_mm_0229buffetrichest.html">an almost 40% loss from his worth the year before), or ~$11.1 billion, to satisfy he and his family's housing like most of the poor, working, and middle classes are forced to do. Even if he did, he would still have some $25 billion left for discretionary spending.

In very rough terms, taxing him at the current 35% = $18 billion (not even counting deductions, etc), leaving him with $20 billion. He certainly isn't spending 30% of the remainder on his house. Even the wealthiest in this class might barely need to spend 1% of an amount like that to maintain luxurious digs. Yet taxing the poverty level family making $37,000 at the current 10% = $3700, leaves them with $33,000, minus ~$10,000 (30%) for housing. That results in ~$23,000 to try to survive (juggling food, utilities, childcare, transportation, clothing, etc.).

That is why the push to re-institute progressive taxation and it needs to go FAR BEYOND the $39% for the highest rate.

[hack89]

22. The danger, as NY and California learned, is that upside down pyramids sometimes tip over

if you depend on fewer and fewer people for a larger proportion of your tax income, then you had best hope that they continue to be prosperous. If not, your income disappears with their income.

NY and California has some the highest state tax rates in the country - look what happened to their revenues when the recession hit their highest earners.

[lmrgreen]

21. It's a bit more than 100 million

U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion
Afghanistan = about $3.6 billion a month

That's just a little bit more than 100 million a year.

"only cost us about 100 million"...I wonder what all the mothers who've buried sons or daughters because of these two wars would say about the cost.

Raise the age of social security? At a time when fewer and fewer seniors have been able to save up or hang on to a "nest-egg" to see them through, you want to raise the retirement age?

go back to the drawing board.

[Mechatanketra]

24. WHAT punishment?

The burden of a tax is not measured in how much you pay, but how little you have left. And a marginal income tax system, where everyone pays the same tax rate on the same block of dollars, can't tax you into poverty — if you were the richest man in America before taxes, then you're going to be the richest man in America after taxes, and the absolute last person who gets to complain that their taxes are too high.

In many cases, I do like the idea of punishing people for "being rich", because the thing is, it's not like anyone's becoming billionaires via Stakhanovite overachievement on the factory line. Aside from artists, inventors, and athletes, the big bucks are made either by disproportionately leveraging the labor of others, or by exploiting a superior initial capital supply. (E.g. many more people may have the speculative spirit to be bankers than have the cash on hand to loan; many more people may be willing to do the work of becoming doctors or lawyers than can afford the requisite education). We need a system that rewards people for what they do rather than for what they have, and highly progressive taxation is a pretty good rough start.

[JNelson6563]

25. I've got a better idea....

Instead of making people work too late in life, how about means testing? There are a lot of people out there who get SS that do not need it in any way, shape or form.

Julie

[madmax]

12. +1

[Garbo 2004]

5. The same GOP that created the deficits? Cheney said "deficits don't matter."

Increasing gov't spending while cutting taxes and gov't revenue is the GOP way.

Enjoy your stay.

[bossy22]

7. what do you expect

they still adhear to reagonomics as if its the bible

but cheney did say something true- defecits don't matter as long as the budget deficit and interest paid is less then your rate of GDP growth

[mikekohr]

10. Approx. 82% of Today's National Debt Has Been Ran Up By the Last 3 Republican Presidents

see link @ http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Clinton balanced five budgets. That is EXACTLY five times as many balanced budgets as produced by the last five Republican presidents, -COMBINED-

see National Debt Graph @ http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

mike kohr

[galileoreloaded]

14. Absofuckingloutly. And we have the experience and mandate to balance this one.

Oh, wait......

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. $20 billion per year? How many billions per month do we spend on Iraq...

and Afghanistan? It's astonishing how fucked up this country's priorities are.

[Joe Bacon]

15. Those who had the party ought to pay for it!

Terminate the Bush Welare For The Rich Tax Cuts RIght Now

Reinstate the Inheritance Tax and set it at 50% for estates over 1 million dollars and 75% for estates over 5 million dollars.

Tax at 95% the severance packages of corporate executives who preside over failures.

Revoke the tax exempt status of all churches. Since they want to play, make 'em pay.

Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the trillion dollar toilet flush that turned into

Cut the Pentagon budget by 50%

Now that is a good start to cut the deficit.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[howaboutme]

29. A little off topic but why doesn't the IRS restrict interest on RALs

Restricting the interest that the loan shark tax preparers such as Liberty, Block, and others can charge those that are always short on money. They pay these preparers huge interest rates just to get their tax refund immediately instead of waiting several weeks. They call these "Refund anticipation loans" that essentially take money that taxpayers have paid to help the needy and redistribute it to the rich corporations. These tax preparers need reined in.