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.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
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.
“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.
#42
I realize that you are mathematically challenged, but let’s see if we can explain this to you. If two people pay the same percentage of their income to taxes, the person that has the higher overall income DOES pay more even though they have the same tax rate. The person that buys a Aston Martin IS ALREADY paying more than a person that buys a Hyundai. Thus, arguing that rich need to pay their “fair” share is a steaming pile of bullshit. You have absolutely no interest in fair. What you want is for everyone to end with the same amount of disposable income after taxes.
#28, 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.
A principle is an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct. By your own admission, not everyone agrees with that so that reduces your statement to an opinion.
However, the definition of professed includes “alleged” and “pretended.” If you wish state your opinion in such a manner, I would accept that.
#44, Our current tax code is a mess. It’s riddled with loopholes and exceptions and sweetheart deals put in by rich people and corporations.
Which is why it needs to go away completely. It will never be fixed. You are living in Eutopialand if you think it will.
btw . . . who gets to determine fair?
Making a rich person pay 40% of their income in taxes while a poor person is paying 15% is not the same as equalizing disposable income after taxes. Work out the math, moron.
AHAHAHAHAH. I’m surprised you didn’t spell it “moran.” Making a rich person pay a higher percentage of their income is most definitely directed at having the rich person and the poor person end with the same amount of disposable income. Here’s a test for you. Try justifying a progressive tax without using the word “fair” or any synonym thereof (e.g. equitable).
Our current tax code is a mess. It’s riddled with loopholes and exceptions and sweetheart deals put in by rich people and corporations.
On this we agree, which is why people propose a flat tax but there are too many hands in the pot and too much cynicism and distrust towards the government for it to happen.
They pay far less than their fair share
There you go throwing out that term “fair” as if we all agree on your definition. “Fair” ought to imply “equitable” in this context but clearly it does not to you.
Btw, if it were only 40%, the rich might not complain as much. Take out those loopholes and include State taxes, local taxes and all other items that the government extracts from your income it is more like 60%+ right now.
Then Thomas you’ll agree with my math: $3,800,000,000,000 budget / 350,000,000 people = your share is $10,900.
If you have five people in your household, you owe about $55,000.
It is fee for service that you advocate, and a 2 year old enjoys the same services as a 55 year old.
Either taxes are a fee for service or they redistribute wealth (while paying for services). A regressive flat tax redistributes wealth. A progressive tax redistributes wealth.
When a rich person buys an expensive car, he pays a fee for service. If a poor person wants to buy that same expensive car, he pays the same fee for service. It goes without saying that the “fee for service” in this example is the cost to build and sell the car.
#46 AHAHAHAHAH. I’m surprised you didn’t spell it “moran.” Making a rich person pay a higher percentage of their income is most definitely directed at having the rich person and the poor person end with the same amount of disposable income. Here’s a test for you. Try justifying a progressive tax without using the word “fair” or any synonym thereof (e.g. equitable).
Sigh. OK, moron, I’ll spell it out for you.
Rich person: Income $1,000,000. 40% tax. Income after taxes: 1M * .60 = $600,000.
Poor person: Income $40,000. 15% tax. Income after taxes: 40K * .85 = $34,000.
Now here’s the tricky part for morons like you:
$34,000 < $600,000. (that's 34K "is less than" 600K)
If you think that's income equalization, I want some of the recreational drugs you're ingesting. Or maybe you slept thru math class. Or maybe listening to Rush'n'Beck too much has corroded your mind.
A moron's mind is a terrible thing to waste.
#49, Do does it make you mad that he still has $600,000 left over?
#50 Yep, there’s that good ol’ black and white wingnut thinking: Either you’re in favor of taking ALL of people’s money, or you’re in favor of not taking ANY of it. Nothing in between.
Y’all are like the Christian fundamentalists, only in an economic sense. 🙂
#51, Nice Dodge, there, hoss.
#52 #51, Nice Dodge, there, hoss.
You wish. You’re the one dodging reality with your ideas of banning all income taxes. Dream on. I’m living in the real world, with all those shades of gray you find so distressing. Taxation is necessary. Figuring out how to do it is difficult. So run away and hide in your fantasy solutions, little boy. Leave the real work to the adults.
#49
Folks, this stuff just writes itself. You have just proven my point:
A: A person with a higher income ALREADY pays more than the person with a lower income even if their tax rate were identical. One would think that the math would be easy to grasp, but if you had to write it out to understand, then fine.
B: It is all about how much money you have left over after taxes. You have no interest in “fair” meaning equitable. Your determination of “fair” is based on how much you have left after taxes. Hell, I’m surprised that you find 40% to be fair. Why not have a 96.6% tax rate for the rich? That way, both people end up with the same amount of money. Why stop at 40%? What makes 40% fairer than 30% and less fair than 50%, 70%, 90% or more?
#53, Well, you didn’t answer the question, what else are we to think?
#56, My question wasn’t about fair.
My question was does it make you mad the guy still had $600,000 left?
It’s a simple Yes/No question.
But I won’t waste my time debating that question with people who think we should get rid of taxes completely.
And there he goes, confronted with logic, runs and hides. You’re nothing, if not consistent.