President Obama today will propose a $3.8-trillion federal budget that includes a $100-billion jobs package, more education spending and higher taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year.
The budgetary blueprint for fiscal 2011, which starts Oct. 1, is 3% more than the government is spending this year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The White House envisions a $1.267-trillion deficit in fiscal year 2011, smaller than this year’s projected $1.56 trillion. That would be 8.3% of the gross domestic product, down from 10.6% this year. The White House Budget Office forecasts that it could be trimmed to less than 4% of the GDP by 2015.
“It’s not a left-wing budget. It’s not a right-wing budget,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a briefing for reporters Sunday. “It’s a pragmatic budget. It’s a common-sense budget.
[...]
The budget includes a freeze on the overall level of discretionary spending apart from national security and mandatory entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Guyver, if you agree that a flat tax is regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of discretionary funds from the individual, then I have no technical arguments with your stance.
Meant to say: “… discretionary funds from the poorer individuals, … “
21, Father, under a flat income tax system the legally poor would not pay income tax (as they don’t now).
For everyone else, they would pay the same flat income tax rate (regardless of your income). The “sting” would be proportionately the same.
What you’re going to gripe about is that although everyone is paying the same rate, the “poorer” individuals have less discretionary funds to buy the things they want and live. OMG! How will the “poorer” people in our society live?
This means the “poorer” individuals are not entitled to steak and caviar if they cannot afford it. That they probably drive a Toyota Yaris instead of a Lexus. This means they live in an apartment instead of owning a home. It’s called living within your means.
Life is not fair. You should be entitled to what you earn and not what government decides to give you. Like I said, America is about equal opportunity and not equal outcome. If you don’t like your situation, then work your way out of it.
Good.
I am happy you understand the implications of a flat tax. Over the years here on DU, there seem to exist advocates of a flat tax that think it will be “fairer”! But I’m not always sure if those advocates understand how a flat tax really works. You clearly do.
I leave it to the individual to decide for himself if a flat tax works for him.
A flat tax would most likely reduce my bill.
“pay their fare share..” Easy to say when you’re not the one have to pay…
“Fair” is a matter of perspective.
Imagine working as a waiter, you bust your butt serving your customers and get really good tips, your co-worker goofs off all night and hardly gets any… The the boss says you have to share your tips with your co-worker…
Now, does that seem fair?
25, Nope definitely not fair but that’s how socialism works.
24, Father, “Take Home Pay” is a nice way of describing what the government allows you to have. A fair tax if nothing else would likely make more people pay attention to where their money goes.
I would rather income tax just be done away with altogether and we all just go to the Fair Tax system which is an entirely consumption-based system.
#18 The underlying principle is whether or not people are entitled to other people’s money for no other reason than because they are financially more successful.
That is not the underlying principle. The underlying principle is that rich people benefit more from living in our society, so they should pay a higher percentage of their income to keep our society going. You may not agree with this principle, but many people do.
Taxes are the dues we pay for civilization. Lots of people want to weasel out of paying their dues.
#20 Typical wingnut rant. Anyone who has morals and ethics different from yours has no morals and ethics. How can you stand it, living in a world with no morals and ethics? Poor baby.
” While his 1952 landslide gave the Republicans control of both houses of the Congress, Eisenhower believed that taxes could not be cut until the budget was balanced. “We cannot afford to reduce taxes, [and] reduce income,” he said, “until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced.” Eisenhower kept the national debt low and inflation near zero.”
Cursor_
#4. I’m not actually sure I know of a war that produced a stable prosperous economy. When the war ends the economy slumps.
I’m also not sure I know of any situation in which government spending actually created stable growth in the private sector.
As H. Thatcher said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
I think this year we will be spending 40% borrowed money and taxing the crap out of small business owners who by and large fall into the targeted tax group. A major hunk of all revenue is going to be used to pay interest on previously barrowed money. Do I think this will cause more jobs to be produced? No. I’m hoping that the private sector will mange to produce some jobs despite the incompetents running the country.
Of course almost nobody in the Obama administration has any actual experience running a profitable business so what can you expect? It’s amateur time and it shows. Smart University graduates with a lot of theory and no experience: Not even a lemonade stand when they were a kid. They don’t have a clue what it takes in practice to get the private sector to grow.
They do know how to make money off the government. I’ll give them that.
#30 Of course almost nobody in the Obama administration has any actual experience running a profitable business so what can you expect?
And this is different from the previous administration in what way? Dubya was legendary in his ability to run businesses into the ground and get bailed out by his daddy’s rich friends.
Here’s a tip: If you’re going to bash Obama, you should probably not accuse him of the same stuff Dubya was guilty of. You know, makes you look like a hypocritical wingnut. FYI.
28, Phydeau,
And for whatever reason, no one acknowledges the risk and sacrifices someone had to make in order to become wealthy. Again this is redistribution of wealth by picking and chosing tax rates based on penis envy.
They’re called Socialists. LOL.
30, Deowll,
Ouch!
Well, they certainly have frozen my discretionary spending.
Didn’t someone tell me that Obama lowered taxes? What’s with that tax increase in the budget?
Spending more with higher deficits in the lowest year, than the highest under George W Bush. Obama said Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. Now he just raises spending some more.
more than 40% of US tax revenue goes to Defense spending.
The US spends almost as much on Defense as the rest of the world combined.
what a waste.
Guyver — do you really think that Paris Hilton and some poor black kid from the southside of Chicago had equal opportunity in life? That Paris earned her Rolls Royce on her own? What a clever gal.
Also, one argument for Income tax is that it’s one more place for the government to nail cheaters. If you only have consumption taxes, then many rich will manage to avoid taxes by paying “under the table”. Spreading the taxes around many sources, make it that much harder for cheaters.
The “Weathermen” Strikes again?
$3.8T?? Pure f’n socialist INSANITY. -how is it that nobody blinks at these numbers anymore?
Translation: everything will be just fine, so long as you invest ALL your capital, debt and credit back into all things Uncle Sam, and those who have him holding onto his ankles for dear life. -and no, I will not you bring, supply nor write off, the 55 gallon drum of lard you will need. (to which all the treasonous bastages in the house, stand up and applause.)
The most disgusting thing of all is that majority of the people have no clue about any of this. -nor will they, -even after the entire country is on the street. Truly disgusting, -what we as a nation have become.
-s
“Oil and gas subsidies are costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices.”
Then why are they giving subsidies for clean energy? They just said that subsidies do little to incentivize production or reduce prices.
#32 You may not agree with this principle, but many people do.
They’re called Socialists. LOL.
Yes, it’s true. Wingnuts have detached themselves from reality enough that words to them mean whatever they want. Thus you have wingnuts calling Obama communist, fascist, socialist, etc. In reality, these things have different (and sometimes contradictory) meanings. But in wingnut world, they don’t worry about real meanings.
Thanks for letting us know what “socialist” means in wingnut world, buddy.