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.
1
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
Again, the economy has recovered once the government starts spending what it takes in AND NO MORE. To include interest payments.
Again, worrying over a deficit in this situation is ignorant. Spend what is needed or face a worse depression. Unless you like repeating Roosevelt era mistakes. Read Paul Krugman and learn how things are actually working here.
The budget includes a freeze on the overall level of discretionary spending apart from national security and mandatory entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
That leaves, what, 8%?
No, we’ll just let the wars and all other entitlement programs spiral out of control instead.
Great.
If you want to get a handle on the economy, you need to start looking at the Fed.
gmknobl,
I’ve heard a small business owner on a reality TV Show say, “Fake it until you make it.”
She was spending her seed money on a fancy lifestyle while putting of worrying about attracting customers and building a sustainable business model.
She lost her business in the end, and had large debts owed to everyone (including friends, IMS).
Show me one case where deficit spending combined with tax cuts, and absent of the “stimulus” of a long war that didn’t yield booty (oil or resourses), resulted in 20 years of stable economic activity that didn’t terminate in boom-bust cycle. Otherwise you’re preaching Voodoo Economics.
Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire for households making more than $250,000 a year, generating $678 billion over 10 years.
In the spirit of turkeys voting for Thanksgiving, no doubt many wingnuts here will protest this. How dare we try to make rich people pay their share of taxes? Those poor poor rich people! 🙂
Man another freaking proposal haven’t these politicians heard of cutting things down. Damn
Does the budget include big raises for our hard-working senators and congressmen?
An idea: No elected federal government official shall be paid a salary (or expenses) when the federal budget has a deficit.
@#5 “How dare we try to make rich people pay their share of taxes? ” – Depending what you see as “their share”. Everyone regardless the income level paying exact same percentage of it as tax: everyone paying their share, by rational thinking. Liberal thinking: More you earn, fare share is greater percentage of your earnings “because you can afford it” and at some point of income you do not pay anything while receiving benefits. Problem? Unsustainable. Hence, rational me, though very unlikely to ever earn over 100000$/y in Education/Science will strongly defend rich from being robbed in my name because I know that the only possible result is damage to total economy in which I live.
Fine dusanmal, $3,800,000,000,000 / 350,000,000 people = your share is $10,900.
As I make in the low six figures, I would happy to write a check to the IRS for this amount, I’ll even round it up to an even $11,000.
I wonder how many people are blindly accepting the fact that the “Jobs” package ins’t about jobs for us, it’s another Banker Bonus. So in a way it is a jobs Package, if your a banker.
We really need to bring these sons a bitches up on domestic terrorism charges.
#8 The rich benefit more from living in America, so they should pay a higher percentage of taxes. If they don’t like it, they can take their hard-earned money and find a better deal in some other country. But you know what they’ll find? Every other civilized country in the world has higher tax rates than America. And the countries where the taxes are lower, you’ll have other expenses: Bribes to local officials, armored limousines, 12 foot walls around your villa studded with broken glass to keep out the desperate poor.
It’s a free world… the rich can go wherever they want to live. They know they have a good deal here, even at the highest tax rates.
The rich paid much higher tax rates in past decades, when the economy was booming. So spare me your BS about high taxes on the rich hurting the economy.
Sigh… another turkey voting for Thanksgiving.
I meant to say, Rather than having penis-envy and disproportionately tax everyone who makes more money,…
#12
So you really think that those born with silver spoons in their mouth have the same opportunities as those who are born to single parents who can barely afford to feed them?
Those rich that are providing jobs do so because they benefit financially by the work that is done by their employees. If they lay people off then they have less people that will be making them money.
Taxing income is pretty much the same as taxing consumption. The more you make the more you are able to consume. Should those that horde money, taking it out of the economy be rewarded?
#12 I’m not in favor of redistribution of wealth. I’m in favor of people paying a fair price for what they get. Rich people get more in America — they get stability and safety and social order and relatively non-corrupt government, all while paying relatively low taxes. That’s a very good value. They should pay more for it. Simple supply and demand. I don’t know where you’re getting all this “redistribution of wealth” nonsense.
The “rich” are the job providers in this country. If you believe raising their taxes will have no effect on employment, then you’re being naive. A rich person won’t give up their standard of living. A few layoffs will help them maintain their standard of living.
Let me repeat: This country boomed economically while the rich were paying astronomically high taxes. So your claim just doesn’t make sense.
Why are “conservatives” so afraid of rich people? Why do they bow and scrape and want to give away the store to rich people? Beats me…
Remember, Bush fought two wars off-budget.
So don’t compare Obama’s to Bush’s budgets.
Like Guyver said, I demand that poor people pay higher taxes than me!
I am generous enough to spend my money at places the poor work, I have the entitlement that they should pay me back by paying my share of the taxes that help make the system operate!
Damn those disgusting poor people!
14, MrMiGu, We all make choices in life. Some people start single parent families while others become self-made millionaires. I would argue most people who claim to have been unlucky in life are so because of the choices in life they make.
Of course the rich benefit from the work done by their employees. Likewise, the employees benefit from the work they provide.
Taxing income is NOT the same as taxing consumption. Taxing consumption would be flat and controlled by the consumer in how they consume. Everyone would pay their fair share. Even the people who buy more expensive toys / food.
15, Phydeau, most of what you’re griping about is based on penis-envy when you specifically single out rich people. The taxes the rich pay are a higher % of their income than people who make less money. Do they invest their money in tax-free funds? Of course they do. Why wouldn’t you?
If you truly want to make things fair, then either go to a flat or fair tax system. It would be totally transparent and everyone pays into it. The poor would get a monthly allowance to either offset monthly necessities in the fair tax or to refund what they put into under the flat tax system.
Except for the poor, everyone likes maintain at least their current standard of living. Including the rich. The rich can either sacrifice for the greater good at their expense, or they can do layoffs and provide less benefits to their employees.
Which of the scenarios are likely to happen in this economy if you raise their taxes?
I don’t know why “Conservatives” are so afraid as you seem to believe. Perhaps you’ve come a hasty conclusion since it could also be a matter of principle?
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. Simply justifying the use of force through government to rob Peter to pay Paul is in principal wrong IMHO. It’s redistribution of wealth.
The most fair way to approach things is a fair / flat tax, but for some reason the liberals oppose that either because they still have penis envy or because it makes government too transparent and would mean entitlement programs might end up on the chopping block.
Like I said before. America is the land of equal opportunity. America is not the land of equal outcome.
17, Father, I said a flat or fair tax. One’s income should not even be part of the equation (unless you’re poor) when it comes to taxes.
If you’re poor, then there would either be refunds or subsidies to cover the basic necessities.
Do the rich pay a higher sales tax for things they buy / consume? For the most part no. Why make them pay a higher % of their income simply because they make more?
#12 Yes, I respond every once in a while so that I can produce profile. They don’t act like most of us would expect, they’re a different breed of human being that we could call homo progressive. The ideal HP has the ability to eliminate all ethics, morality and conscience from an argument making them seem irrational. However, when you really look at it they really have a certain mathematical precision that you can almost predict.
They make statements that seem absurd and presumptuous “If they don’t like it, they can take their hard-earned money and find a better deal in some other country” but what they’re really doing is stating the reality as they’d like to see it without regard to weather it’s right or not.
The problem is that you can’t actually debate with such a person as an HP because, since he has no morals, he sees you and your arguments as either selfish or stupid. Either gives him an excuse to disregard what you say and to press on as if there isn’t an alternative to his argument. And in any case they’re real aim is to turn you into one of them or destroy you.
Think about the argument here. Do you think his aim is to ‘allow rich people to live where they want?’ No, his aim is to eliminate all rich people. An HP doesn’t see hypocrisy when they say tax someone out of existence at the same time as saying they’re free to go where they want. They see this as a strategy.
I think the only remedy is for men and women of good conscience to stand up for what is right and against what is wrong.
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?
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_
#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. 🙂
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?