If he does it I'll give him credit-Obama to cut deficit 50%

[ugpastor]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

He's expected to outline some broad themes of his budget request Monday at a White House summit on fiscal policy and touch on it during his first speech to Congress on Tuesday evening. He is slated to officially send at least a summary of it to Congress on Thursday, barely a week after his $787 billion economic stimulus plan becoming law.

Obama's budget also is expected to take steps toward his campaign promises of establishing universal health care and lessening the country's reliance on foreign oil.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget, said Obama hopes to achieve his deficit-reduction goal by generating savings as he follows through on three core campaign promises over the next four years.

He has pledged to wind down the Iraq war by withdrawing most combat troops within 16 months of taking office. He also has said he would let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for people making more than $250,000 a year, effectively raising taxes on those people. And, he has vowed to scale back spending and improve government efficiency by eliminating programs that don't work.

[one love]

raising those taxes may help the deficit until he needs another stimulus package because the economy will be so bad from raising taxes.

[Tim Elston]

raising those taxes may help the deficit until he needs another stimulus package because the economy will be so bad from raising taxes.

Kevin, he just lowered taxes for 97% of Americans. To what tax increase are you referring?

[pastorables]

raising those taxes may help the deficit until he needs another stimulus package because the economy will be so bad from raising taxes.

Kevin, he just lowered taxes for 97% of Americans. To what tax increase are you referring?

Being a small business owner, as Kevin, I assume he would be referring to the business taxes Obama promised during his campaign. This will supposedly affect any business grossing $200K or more. What small business doesn't accomplish this yearly? The amount a business grosses is not synonymous with wealth.

Further taxation will hurt small businesses and cause many to close due to the inability to pay employees and cover necessary operating expenses, etc.

New taxes will create further job loss and damage the economy even more.

pa

[RamboPreacher]

too bad we can't effectively throw the tea overboard.

[Tim Elston]

Being a small business owner, as Kevin, I assume he would be referring to the business taxes Obama promised during his campaign. This will supposedly affect any business grossing $200K or more. What small business doesn't accomplish this yearly? The amount a business grosses is not synonymous with wealth.

Further taxation will hurt small businesses and cause many to close due to the inability to pay employees and cover necessary operating expenses, etc.

New taxes will create further job loss and damage the economy even more.

According to the article "Obama's first budget seeks to cut deficit," the plan to halve the deficit is based on drawing down the Iraq war, letting Bush's temporary tax cuts expire in 2011, and maintaining the current tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million rather than letting it expire.

I heard Obama say during the campaign that he would not raise taxes on small businesses and, in fact, that he would reduce the health care tax on small businesses and reduce the SSN tax for the self-employed. From everything that I have seen or heard the proposed tax increase on wealthy individuals is on net, not gross, income exceeding $250,000, and the increased tax is only on the amount that is above that figure, not below it.

I have seen no indication that Obama plans to raise taxes on small businesses. Can you point to something that indicates that he will?

[one love]

raising those taxes may help the deficit until he needs another stimulus package because the economy will be so bad from raising taxes.

Kevin, he just lowered taxes for 97% of Americans. To what tax increase are you referring?

yeah his big tax cut gives the average person $13.00, that is not going to help the economy.
I am talking about the post that was made and the news he announced the other day saying he was going to raise taxes on those making over 250k (a month ago he said it would hurt the economy now it is okay I guess...

Tim I am also referring to him not renewing Bush tax cuts that is going to hurt the economy, the rest will be money cut from Iraq and Afghan, sure the troops will love that.

It has been proven through the years that major tax cuts (whether they say for the rich or not) always helps the economy, giving the average person $13.00 is not going to create jobs, help any business.

[Tim Elston]

yeah his big tax cut gives the average person $13.00, that is not going to help the economy.

I've heard that he wanted $500 per person, and $1000 per couple annually, but he got $400/person and $800/couple. Bush gave out $600 to $1200 per person. You're right about it not stimulating the economy, but it's a tax cut.

I am talking about the post that was made and the news he announced the other day saying he was going to raise taxes on those making over 250k (a month ago he said it would hurt the economy now it is okay I guess...

I've seen that it's an increase from 36% to 39% on individual net income that exceeds $250K. From $1 to $250K will remain taxed at the same rate. I personally have no sympathy for rich whiners who can't deal with that, while the income of many American's barely gets them by.

Tim I am also referring to him not renewing Bush tax cuts that is going to hurt the economy, the rest will be money cut from Iraq and Afghan, sure the troops will love that.

It's not like he is going to put soldiers on rations. He is going to bring many troops home, thus reducing spending, and, yes, the troops will love that. It was the Bush administration that overtaxed and screwed soldiers over and over again.

It has been proven through the years that major tax cuts (whether they say for the rich or not) always helps the economy giving the average person $13.00 is not going to create jobs, help any business.

It's about $400/yr. It's a tax cut.

Bush's tax cuts didn't help the economy. Tax cuts are not a panacea. They need to be the right kind of cuts, and they need to be coupled with fiscal restraint, if the objective is to stimulate the economy. Deficits and spending are other factors that affect overall economic health. Obama is inheriting an economic disaster that was bound to happen but was exacerbated by Bush's fiscal policies and Congress's spending. I don't think that there is any hope for it, but tax cuts/increases are not the be-all/end-all to how this plays out, especially the kinds of adjustments that are on the table.

[TW]

Tim,
Allow me to point out that this legislation only has a life span of two years. In addition to which the "tax cut" you refer to is not actually a cut but rather a credit. The first year it should result in about $13.00 a week for the average worker, the second year that drops to $7.00 a week. The end result is that over the two year period the effective credit will yield only about $7.80 per week (average) to the worker. There is no real reduction in the tax rate!

Looking down the road the future does not look bright for American business under President Obama's plan. If he raises taxes enough on the people and businesses making $250,00.00 per year to pay for this package he will destroy that same said American business. Those business that can afford to will move their operation "off shore" to a more friendly business environment, those that can't will close their doors and go out of business. Both of which will result in the loss of jobs, increasing the unemployment rate. This places a greater burden upon those that are fortunate enough to still have jobs. The industries that are left, i.e. the service industry, etc., will not be able to absorb the additional workers, and those that are able to find employment will drive down the average wage. If everybody goes to work at McDonald's, who is left to buy the burgers?

This does not even address all the "pork" and socialist programs that coat-tailed in on this package. It's bad legislation, and only serves to postpone the inevitable.


TW

[Tim Elston]

Allow me to point out that this legislation only has a life span of two years.

Right.

In addition to which the "tax cut" you refer to is not actually a cut but rather a credit.

It's money. It's tax that taxpayers don't have to pay. It doesn't matter what it's called.

The first year it should result in about $13.00 a week for the average worker, the second year that drops to $7.00 a week. The end result is that over the two year period the effective credit will yield only about $7.80 per week (average) to the worker.

I'm not sure how $13.00/wk for one year and $7.00/wk for the second year average out to $7.80/wk for the two-year period, apart from unmentioned factors, but, frankly, I don't need to know. I'm not an apologist for this as an effective economic stimulus.

$13/wk is $728 per year.

There is no real reduction in the tax rate!

Right.

Looking down the road the future does not look bright for American business under President Obama's plan.

Looking at the last eight years, it wasn't, in fact, bright for American businesses under President Bush's plan, either.

If he raises taxes enough on the people and businesses making $250,00.00 per year to pay for this package he will destroy that same said American business.

Obama's plan is to increase the tax from 36% to 39% on taxable income that is above $250K. This applies to net income above that amount, after deductions, loopholes, etc. I have not seen or heard that this applies to businesses, only to individuals. Can you point me to something that shows that this tax increase will apply to business net profit over $250K?

An individual who nets $300K after tax deductions would have $250K taxed at the existing rate of 36% and $50K taxed at the new rate of 39%. This does not apply to businesses, as far as I have seen or heard. If anyone can point me to something that shows that it does, I want to see it.

This does not even address all the "pork" and socialist programs that coat-tailed in on this package. It's bad legislation, and only serves to postpone the inevitable.

I am no apologist for this debt package. It includes too much spending for programs that are not directly tied to stimulating the economy, even though some of its spending does. It may or may not postpone the inevitable, depending on whether it has any short term success at acheiving what it is designed to achieve. But, as your statement implies, our dire economic future is inevitable independently of this stimulus bill. It is inevitable because our monetary system is fundamentally self-destructive, and no single administration can be blamed for that. Perhaps Wilson and Nixon are the most culpable, however. Bush's bailout and Obama's stimulus are symptoms of our monetary system, which is the cause of our coming economic demise.

[bibleguy]

raising those taxes may help the deficit until he needs another stimulus package because the economy will be so bad from raising taxes.

Kevin, he just lowered taxes for 97% of Americans. To what tax increase are you referring?

Stimulus Could Cost $37,000 Per Person

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this year's budget deficit would be a record $1.2 trillion — about two times that of the year before. This includes financial bailouts and rescue plans approved since last Oct. 1, the start of the government's budget year, but not the big stimulus proposal now before Congress.

And that deficit is just for one year.

Once you carry over government's outstanding deficits from prior years, the total national debt comes to just over $10.6 billion right now. Every individual in the United States would have to chip in roughly $37,000 apiece to pay it off.

The unavoidable effect is a greater burden on the taxpayers. At $13.00 per week, it'll take me only 11385 weeks (219 years) to put away enough to pay for my family of four's share. Thank you President Obama. (And of course I must extend my appreciation to President Bush, too, for his part in the stimulus mess. I'm no partisan!!)

[Tim Elston]

Stimulus Could Cost $37,000 Per Person

The article's title is a misnomer, because, unless I'm reading sloppily, the article says the $37,000 per person is what it would take to pay off the national debt, as of last year. Half of that debt accumulated during the Bush presidency, and none of Obama's stimulus contributes to that figure.

The article goes on to state that the stimulus, if effective, will reduce the annual deficit in the long term, thus reducing the rate at which the national debt increases. I personally believe that the national debt will continue to grow exponentially and eventually trigger economic collapse, even if the stimulus effectively halves the annual deficit.

The unavoidable effect is a greater burden on the taxpayers. At $13.00 per week, it'll take me only 11385 weeks (219 years) to put away enough to pay for my family of four's share.

It would take you 879 weeks (17 years) to pay off your family's portion of the stimulus package at $13 per week. It is $37,000 per person to pay off the national debt before Obama took office; the stimulus, if rounded up to $1 trillion and divided between 350,000,000 Americans costs $2857 per person.

But we are never going even to begin paying off our national debt. Those numbers are irrelevant. Our national debt will continue to grow exponentially until our economic system collapses, regardless of whether bailouts or stimulus packages are successful at accomplishing their intended purposes.

[bibleguy]

It would take you 879 weeks (17 years) to pay off your family's portion of the stimulus package at $13 per week. It is $37,000 per person to pay off the national debt before Obama took office; the stimulus, if rounded up to $1 trillion and divided between 350,000,000 Americans costs $2857 per person.

Whew! Only 17 years, I thought it was going to take a long time.

But we are never going even to begin paying off our national debt. Those numbers are irrelevant. Our national debt will continue to grow exponentially until our economic system collapses, regardless of whether bailouts or stimulus packages are successful at accomplishing their intended purposes.

Oh. Well, call me a pessimist, but with the economic policies since the creation of the Federal Reserve System to today, especially with the "stimuli" both Bush and the current administration are touting, we are certainly heading down a path that will lead us to said collapse.

I'm sure glad I cashed in my 401(K) last May. The 10% penalty was peanuts compared to the hit it would have taken had I left it alone.

[TW]

Tim,
It's plain to see that math was not your major in college. There are 52.14285714 weeks in a year. At $13.00 a week that comes to $677.82 the first year. The second year at $7.00 per week it comes to $365.00. The sum of the two years is $1042.82. Divide that by 104.2857143 weeks for an average of $9.99 per week. OK, I'll own up to it. I didn't fully check the math in the article that I drew my numbers from, so the $7.80 figure was incorrect as far as I can tell. These numbers are averaged for both single persons and couples. Couples will get a little more, and those of us that are going it alone will get less. It still not a tax cut, there is no reduction of the tax rate. You will be given a tax credit, however you will have to pay taxes on the amount that you receive the same as your hourly wage. I my case, being single, getting a $400.00 credit, paying taxes upon that increase, I will see a difference of $5.71 per week the first year and about half that the second year should I choose to work that long (which I won't). You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed with this load of fertilizer that's supposed to grow the economy.


TW

[Tim Elston]

It's plain to see that math was not your major in college. There are 52.14285714 weeks in a year.

You're right that I wasn't a math major, but I did get As in math. I calculated against 56 weeks in a year, which I get wrong frequently, for some reason. On the occasion that I remember that there are 52 weeks in a year, I am certain not to bother with the .14285714 when I'm generalizing.

At $13.00 a week that comes to $677.82 the first year. The second year at $7.00 per week it comes to $365.00. The sum of the two years is $1042.82. Divide that by 104.2857143 weeks for an average of $9.99 per week. OK, I'll own up to it. I didn't fully check the math in the article that I drew my numbers from, so the $7.80 figure was incorrect as far as I can tell.

That's okay; I sometimes get things wrong, too.

You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed with this load of fertilizer that's supposed to grow the economy.

No apologies necessary. I wrote to ask my senators to vote No on the bill, and I wrote to say thank you for voting No to the one who did.