Obama budget: New spending with recycled tax ideas
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
-2
SushiSake3
'The president’s plan is laden with stimulus-style initiatives: sharp increases for highway construction and school modernization, and a new tax credit for businesses that add jobs.'
'No.'
That's what we're going to hear from Republicans on this.
But their ongoing opposition to investing in America makes sense, I mean why bother investing in America and her infrastructure when budget funds can be spent far more wisely by keeping taxes low for the rich, a tactic that has been proven to have zero correlation to economic growth and near 100% correlation with bringing good times for managers of offshore tax havens.
Why bother investing in America when conservatives can constantly and incessantly complain about massive budget deficits while not supporting any new revenue gathering policies to help address the issue?
Why bother investing in America and her infrastructure when conservatives can waste valuable time pretending to care about social issues instead of creating jobs, the latter of which they actually DO have a strategy for.
It's just a pity that strategy involves wrenching the level of America's morality back to that of the 17th century while virtually guaranteeing a majority of Americans will be able to experience first hand the fun and joys of living in a 19th century poor house.
But that's the Conservative Dream.
0
yanee
Yes Sushi...we all agree...the US must just keep going further and further into debt without thought of any cuts in Government spending whatsoever. Have you seen the state of economies around the world that kept up spending? Greece? UK?
1
SushiSake3
Yanee, the GOP had 8 years to get the budget under control.
They did nothing of the sort, in fact they let it get out of control which is why it is a burning issue today.
0
skipbeat
The reason why America is losing the middle class is because manufacturing jobs and call center jobs moved overseas the last two decades. Those overseas jobs will be a factor in creating a middle class for China and India. Until the wages in China and India becomes the wages of what was in the USA then companies will go look for cheap labor in another country. If an owner is a Democrat or Republican they are going to do what is best for their business to stay around even if that means going overseas to save costs and be profitable.
Obama have put up more red tapes for businesses to do business. It defeats the purpose of a business being profitable and creating jobs. There more empty office spaces and empty parking spaces. Small business are going out of business.
Obama wants millionaires to pay 30% and how is that justifiable? The more a person's income increases than the person have to pay more in taxes.Those millionaires are probably small business owners who employs people. If their income decreases how are they going to hired people?
The airlines will just pass the $100 to the passengers. As if the airline tickets aren't high enough. Obama new budget is no different than a certain Republican governor.
National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama @ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html
The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch. The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush.
0
Wolfpack
President Obama's budget - like last years budget - isn't a serious attempt at governing. It's a political document created with re-election in mind. His budget will likely be voted down again 97 to 0 as it was last year. Obama's goal in life is to strip every bit of individualism and personal liberty left in the American people by taking a huge percentage of their income and giving them what He believes the fruits of their labor should be. He will regulate them from birth to death. He has shown that he will kill citizens without trial, bypass the Senate with political appointments, and force Americans to buy a product just because they are alive. He will ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution because it really doesn't mean much to him.
He is spending America into oblivion and because it suits his ideology and because He just doesn't give a damn. He is easily the worst president in American history.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Wolfpack
You do understand that income tax rates on the wealthy were much higher under Eisenhower and Reagan?
You give Obama too much credit. He will not be president for life (unless you want to make that claim too).
No different from Obama's Republican predecessor.
Because the Senate refused to do its job.
Do you know anyone who has never paid anything for health care in their life? Medical costs are inevitable, and the private sector has proven itself unable to control those costs responsibly. Other countries have government regulated healthcare, and they're doing much better than the US is.
Are those two motivations possible at the same time?
Somebody call a doctor quick. This man's got a bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
-1
Laguna
Skipbeat, this has been said before, but perhaps you missed it.
Total debt added by a president is less important than the debt added by that president's policies. Bush over eight years instituted unfunded policies totaling over $5 trillion; Obama halfway through his presumed eight years is less than a third of that at under $1.5 trillion.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
A major reason the deficit exploded under Obama (aside from obvious effects of a recession, lower tax revenues and higher social spending, both automatic) is the continuation of the disastrous Bush policies. These are no fault of Obama.
0
skipbeat
You believe Obama knows how to control costs responsibly. The guy who ran up $4 trillion in less than 3 years as President. Congress knows how to control costs responsibly when they can't even budget a bill.
Democrats controlling the Senate appear unlikely to offer a budget at all, for a third straight year. Instead, they are already planning to use last years budget pact to determine the size of the pie and divide it into 12 annual appropriations bills that set the day-to-day budgets for Cabinet agencies. The move allows 16 Senate Democrats facing re-election to avoid having to make difficult votes on taxes and spending.
The health care industry is a business (capitalism) and a monopoly. Controlling costs is ironic because the fees keeps going up. From the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and hospitals are the ones that dictate how much they charge for medical attention.
Since Obama's health care reform pass, the services has gotten worse. This is knowing from first hand experience. No appointment reminder and an automatic phone services on hold for 20 minutes, and rude staff. The doctor was a plus. Never went back because the staff were incompetent and didn't have confidence in the staff. Two years ago that was not the case.
The dental industry is more competitive and better than the health industry. The government isn't mandating everyone to get dental insurance.
0
SushiSake3
Skipbeat, comparing debt under bush and Obama is dumb, and hopefully you know it.
Obama inherited a skyrocketing debt spiral from bush. Would you rather GM had gone under and stayed under? The Dems turned that around, as they did the economy by pumping it with stimulus dollars, another thing conservatives appear to have not wanted to do, which would have been if for the US economy in the short to medium term.
What gets me is how the same GOP folk who green lighted every spending bill under bush are now taking issue with spending bills presented by Obama's team, a lot of it which is actually tagged to investing in America as opposed to foreign conflicts.
Some would call that treasonous.
For conservatives, it's modus operandi.
0
skipbeat
Same rhetoric, Obama and his followers blame George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter etc. Obama have set precedent blame someone for your problem.
I am not benefiting anything from the GM bailout. The best people to ask are GM stockholders before and after the bailout. BTW, GWB bailed GM with $17.4 billion in 2008. The credit for GM success goes to GWB. Since Obama is the current president he gets the credit for it.
0
skipbeat
For all that Obama blames Bush, GOP, and the Tea Party, Obama could have stopped the wars and spending all that with executive orders or with the Democratic controlling both the House and the Senate within the first two years in office.
The writer was very generous including the projections for Obama (F.Y. 2009-17) with $1.5 trillion.
The article don't add up like the Medicare drug benefit, 180, compare to Obama's health reform and entitlement changes, 152, when the cost of prescriptions drugs goes up every year. If that's the case than Obama's health care reform is about providing poor medical services and hoping that people don't get their prescriptions drugs.
The defense spending under Obama was listed as 126, On December 31st Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 alone for $662 billion.
0
sailwind
No Taxpayer is.
Washington -The U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million.
In the government's latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.
Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120130/AUTO01/201300393/1148/AUTO01/Treasury-ups-auto-bailout-loss-estimate
But at least they saved the American Industry just ask Sergio Marchionne their new FIAT CEO (he's into big gas guzzling SUV's by the way)
A new Maserati vehicle in the sport luxury SUV segment will represent a natural direction for Maserati to enlarge its product range and strengthen its presence in the sport luxury market, Marchionne said.
The idea of a sport luxury SUV is naturally not totally new to Maserati.
Maserati had unveiled a Kubang concept at the Detroit Auto Show in 2003.
At a time in which few other brands were going in the direction of a sport luxury SUV, Maserati was already thinking to build one but it lacked the engineering platform on which to build the vehicle until Fiat bought Chrysler out of bankruptcy in 2009.
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/09/15/business/doc4e721aac6147c103059114.txt
0
yanee
Sushi...I would rather have seen GM either go under or make it on their own. Ford pulled through just fine without tax dollars. Company mismanagement should not be repaired by the Federal Government
0
SushiSake3
Yanee, Ford pulled through partly because they had lower legacy costs, I think due to a smaller present and past workforce.
Skipbeat, gWB's administration threw away $750 billion in their bailout - no strings attached. Conservatives said nothing.
Obama's bailout came with strings and they have been getting repayments, especially from the big finance cos.
The current crop of Republicans is essentially the same financially irresponsible rabble as the ones who oversaw the tanking of the U.S. and global economies under bUsH.
Conservatives now appear to think the same leopard is somehow a different leopard.
0
sailwind
Sushi, Looks like and this guy have much in common after all.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said Wednesday that his sixth campaign visit to Iowa is intended to help local Republican candidates in the upcoming election and to test the waters for his own potential 2012 presidential bid, and asserted that President Bush let the country down when he signed off on a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
"George Bush let the country down because he didn't know enough when he made that decision," Santorum said. "He blew it on that one."
When asked by an audience member how he would have handled the bailout of General Motors and Ford, Santorum said he was greatly opposed to all of the bailouts over the last year including the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bailout of Bear Stearns and coming to the aid of the two ailing motor vehicle companies.
In fact, although Santorum said he respects President George W. Bush a great deal, he said Bush let the country down by listening to individuals like Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson the head of the Treasury Department when they advised him to sign off on a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street toward the end of his presidential term.
Santorum said he personally would never support another bailout, as it was part of the underlying philosophy that is moving the country in the wrong direction. He said this included a culture fostered by the current government in Washington D.C. that is interested in getting the general population hooked on entitlements that the country can no longer afford.
"We have made promises to generations of Americans that we have absolutely now way of financing," Santorum said.
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=214519
0
SushiSake3
Pretty amazing to see the rabble on display at CPAC. Their ongoing hatespeech embraces divisiveness, radicalism and anger void of any serious attempts to find the truth.
With no evidence, the NRA says Obama will declare war on gun owners.
With no evidence, Gingrich declares the day after he is inaugurated, Obama will declare war on the Catholic Church.
And on and on and on.
They take no responsibility for the 8 years of Republican destruction of the environment, culture and the economy. They would have you believe that all this damage was done by Obama and the Dems in the last three years.
But only the painfully ignorant among conservative ranks will actually believe this nonsense.
Unfortunately, that appears to be the majority.
We'll see how many Americans buy into this conservative lie-festival when the GOP gets America's boot rammed firmly up its backside this November.
Bring it on. :-)
0
Laguna
You know quite well that a president's greatest responsibility is to protect the interests of the United States. Obama voted against the war, and he should be given credit for seeing it through to a credible conclusion.
Some have memory either short or selective (or both). Filibusters burst through the roof with the election of a Democratic Senate as Republicans prevented most anything from coming to vote - a pattern that still continues. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php
The GAO expects Obama's health care plan to actually save the government money - but then, some don't trust the GAO when it states things they don't like.
The Federal Government is not a business: expenses do not disappear just by shoving them off the balance sheet. The uninsured cost society overall vastly more than they would if society would simply insure them to encourage preventive health treatment; similarly, the cost of cleaning up after the terrible human toll an automotive company bankruptcy would have wrought would have vastly exceeded the money the government lost saving the companies.
You don't seem to understand the point of the graph, which was ADDITIONAL spending; the 126 was that added on to the existing defense budget; from this year, the existing budget will be steady or decrease slightly.
0
sailwind
Well let's hope American's sorta overlook a few things first such as his past promises before they re-elect Obama. He should start with workers at the Flora Venture flower shop, seems they have some pretty good memories on what he promised and are reeling from what he has actually delivered.
Jake Tapper
By Jake Tapper @jaketapper Find on FacebookFollow on Twitter Sep 29, 2011 1:46pm New Study Underlines Unfulfilled Promises of Health Care Bill Email 86 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print gty health insurance ll 110609 main New Study Underlines Unfulfilled Promises of Health Care Bill
Getty Images
A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation underlines that many of the promises surrounding President Obama’s health care legislation remain unfulfilled, though the White House argues that change is coming.
Workers at the Flora Venture flower shop in Newmarket, NH, remember when presidential candidate named Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., promised that their health care costs would go down if they elected him and his health care plan was enacted.
On May 3, 2008, the president told voters that he had “a health care plan that would save the average family$2,500 on their premiums.”
Last year workers at the flower shop saw their insurance premiums shoot up 41 percent.
“I basically work for the health care payments,” says manager Pat Cowhig, whose husband has medical issues.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/new-study-underlines-unfulfilled-promises-of-health-care-bill/
0
sailwind
Laguna,
A link to Talking points memo???
I might as well post links to Rush Limbaugh for a counter. Both are as partisan as you can get.
0
Laguna
Thanks for pointing out how insurance companies are gouging their customers, Sailwind - another reason why we need the private option!
The New York Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/business/health-insurance-costs-rise-sharply-this-year-study-shows.html?pagewanted=all
So they seem to be raising rates now simply because they can. The new health care regulations will be phased in in stages over five years; the resulting package will, many think, make the old system seem so bad that people will "cling" to it like they do to Social Security. This is what Republicans are afraid of and is why they want to stop it before people come to like it.
0
sailwind
You meant public option but I understood it. Also you forgot to mention under Obama's healthcare law the public will have to buy health insurance or face penalties. So not only do they get to "gouge" they get free customers that have to buy their product to boot because its mandated. Saves a ton on marketing and competing for customers with the best price and plan options.
Talk about a sweet deal for the insurance companies all around brought to you by President Obama.
0
Laguna
Sailwind - it matters not who bears the news. The Republican record of obstructionism in the Senate is public record no matter who reports the news.
0
SushiSake3
Meanwhile.....the conservative elite busily rearrange the deckchairs on the SS GOP, due to sink straight to the bottom in November 2012.
0
sailwind
Half correct, it is what the Republicans and the majority of American's are afraid of, doubt if they are ever going to like it though.
Straight from the main architect of Obama's bill........Jonathan Gruber
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who also devised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s statewide health care reforms, is backtracking on an analysis he provided the White House in support of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, informing officials in three states that the price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gruber framed this new reality in terms of the same human self-interest that some conservatives had warned in 2010 would ultimately rule the marketplace.
“The market was so discriminatory,” Gruber told TheDC, “that only the healthy bought non-group insurance and the sick just stayed [uninsured].”
In 2011, officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado ordered reports from Gruber which offer a drastically different portrait in 2012 from the one Obama painted just 17 months ago.
“As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act,” the president said in September 2010, ”premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.”
Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”
“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/#ixzz1m6avxxDk
31 percent INCREASE.........Talk about Govt getting it so wrong and making a problem so much worse for American families.
0
Laguna
Sailwind, predictions are all over the map. Here is one from RAND which includes two major conclusions:
and:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1008047
Granted, the reforms are only the first step towards expanding coverage while containing costs. Some would suggest that the status quo is acceptable - but the status quo is what brought us to the dismal place US healthcare is.
-1
unreconstructed
"Democrats controlling the Senate appear unlikely to offer a budget at all, for a third straight year. "
Shamelessly derelict in the duties they were sent to Washington to do.
Who are these people ?
Who do they serve ?
1
sailwind
One more unintended consequence of Obama's health care reform law. It's been killing job creation.
Small businesses make up 99.7% of all employer firms and employ more than half of private sector workers in this country, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, which describes a small business as having fewer than 500 employees.
While 53% of small business owners are optimistic about the state of the economy and the health of their business, one must not forget roughly the same amount of are just as pessimistic. Alter says most of SurePayroll customers describe themselves as "cautiously optimistic" and that sentiment rests heavily upon what happens in Washington.
Next year one of the biggest factors to impact the decisions made by small businesses is the Supreme Court's ruling over the constitutionality of Obama's health care law, according to SurePayroll's November scorecard. By a ratio of 2 to 1, the small business owners surveyed are hopeful the Supreme Court finds the health care legislation unconstitutional. If that were to happen, hiring and wages would likely see a boost, says Alter.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/small-business-optimism-outlook-hinges-scotus-ruling-obamacare-133434122.html
0
Laguna
Well, once again, Sail, we find ourselves at a difference of opinion that no tag-team of Web-based article citing is going to resolve. Leveling the playing field for insurance, providing certainty through legislation, allowing insurance portability for employees - these should do wonders for the small businessman. I am self employed and pay a bit north of 600,000 yen yearly for health insurance for my family of four - about half of what I would pay in the US. I really don't think I could do there what I do here and still insure my family.
It is true that health care in the US is a mess, and it got there through the free market, not through government regulation. Republicans would say that the way out is to double down on what has not worked before. Obama offers a different approach, one that takes a step towards systems used in most advanced countries, including Japan.
-2
Serrano
"tax increases on the wealthy and corporations"
That should take care of the deficit problem, lol.
-2
SushiSake3
Sailwind, which conservative site do you copy and paste your replies from?
Some of them are pretty good.
0
skipbeat
Can you cite your sources as to Obama voted against the war on Iraq. My understanding was Obama was against the war but he was not a U.S Senator to vote against the war in October 2002. Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 3, 2005. Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004.
Obama is acting in the interests of the country in continuing Bush's debt so he can keep blaming Bush. That's one way of looking at it. In the best interest of the country, Obama used executive power to authorized NATO in Libya which consists of American military personnel instead of asking Congress to authorized military use. The Constitution was written in such a way that there is a balance of power between the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. In the best interests of the country, he signed off on citizens rights under NDAA.
Both the Executive and the Legislature are lobby by special interest groups that represents corporations.
My mistake, the 126 was not spending instead it was listed as defense savings according to the chart. The chart did not list an amount for defense spending under Obama.
Where did the $2.5 trillion came from under Obama watch? We know were the $1.5 trillion came from under Obama.
The data supplied by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to The Atlantic lack crucial information that was either not available at the time or was just not provided.
The point of the article is well taken.
0
skipbeat
I am all for everyone having access to health care. Can you enlighten us on how both Japan's health care and Obama's health care works? There is little information about how Obama's health care works except with the latest issue on contraceptives and being required to have health insurance under an employer. The employee can not opt out of his/her employer's health insurance. There is still no forth information as how it works. Obama's health care reform passed 2 years ago and I am clueless as how it effects me. What are the rights of patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies.
Back to top