Obama campaign talk becomes budget reality
There seems to be a new sheriff in town…
From the Washington Post:
“President Obama delivered to Congress yesterday a $3.6 trillion spending plan that would finance vast new investments in health care, energy independence and education by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, hedge fund managers, multinational corporations and nearly 3 million of the nation’s top earners.
The blueprint, meanwhile, would overhaul programs across the federal bureaucracy to strengthen assistance for millions of people who have borne the consequences of what Obama called “an era of profound irresponsibility,” helping them pay for college, train for better jobs and save for retirement while taking less of their earnings in taxes.
The ambitious agenda for the fiscal year that begins in October would not come cheap. This year’s budget deficit, swollen by spending to combat a severe recession, would hit a record $1.75 trillion, or 12.3 percent of the overall economy, under the president’s plan, the highest since 1945. While Obama inherited the bulk of that gap, his budget would make room for a fresh round of spending that could hit $750 billion to prop up troubled financial institutions.
Next year’s deficit would approach $1.2 trillion. But Obama proposes to cut that figure roughly in half by the end of his first term, in large part by levying nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next decade on the nation’s highest earners, defined as families with gross income of more than $250,000 a year….
With its immense scope and bold prescriptions, Obama’s agenda seeks to foster a redistribution of wealth, with the government working to narrow the growing gap between rich and poor. It is likely to spark fierce political battles on an array of fronts, from social spending to energy policy to taxes.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
198 comments Add your comment
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
10:43 am
Paul,
That was a mean thing to do to RW – us….clones. He’s gonna be mad at you ya’ know. I already have a copy, remember? We’re not clones, but close – couple of obvious differences. Ew. I don’t want to go there.
I was soooo thinking “intelligene” was a word! I liked that word. Let’s just keep it. What do you say? RW’s right – you could have passed it off. People trust you here.
Thanks for answering my question. Too bad it didn’t work.
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
10:45 am
I Report/ You Whine
February 27th, 2009
10:25 am
Just trying to set the record straight. Unless O! can get the present mess cleaned up, our future is dimmer than it otherwise might have been. I’ve expressed my disappoinment here and with the White House with the soak the rich mentality, and I’m not a card-carrying Democrat. But I understand better each and every day why Dad went to his grave having never voted for a Republican. I think with him it was Prohibition and the Great Depression that sealed the deal.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
10:48 am
Sorry, Bosch, but you earn a failing grade. While our means of producing goods is still in the hands (largely) of the private sector, the MANAGEMENT of the private sector and the economy is done through the millions of pages of laws enacted by Congress.
We’re well on our way towards Socialism in our time.
And please. Can’t you think for yourself? Have to go to someone else’s website to have your thinking done for you? Try doing it with the definition YOU gave, and see if you can make the case for Bush.
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
10:49 am
In the Clinton era, at least we the people could actually have hope that the borrowing from folks like Communist China and Islam Iran to fund our extravagances could be eliminated. Then, we could at least re-establish a little pride by saying that we fund our own excesses. Well, now that those borrow from anyone, cut taxes for the wealthy, and spend spend spend, lather-rinse-repeat Republicans are in the minority, life is good.
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
10:51 am
Dave R,
Part of the reason for my previous post to Davo was that it’s frustrating to me when people throw out the word socialism when others can throw out something just as ridiculous (as fascims) and each can back it up when they cherry pick what they want to in order to legitimize their own opinions.
Socialism and Fascism are both ridiculous to throw out there as what our government is or is not – because one could argue almost any kind of ideologue to define what our government is – based on what their mood is for the day.
See my point?
Paul
February 27th, 2009
10:51 am
Bosch 10:43
[[Thanks for answering my question. Too bad it didn’t work.]]
Whatsamatter? Your intelligene not working?
11 hours 9 minutes
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 27th, 2009
10:54 am
To Paul:
Hadn’t heard of Sen. S.I. Hayakawa in years. He was the butt of many a Johnny Carson joke back in the day. Wasn’t he once filmed asleep in his chair during a Senate debate?
That also reminds me of the old quote attributed to Sen. Everett (sp?) Dirkson, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money”.
zeke
February 27th, 2009
10:54 am
Well, as our economy is crushed by this socialist agenda of Abama and the congressional demagogs, Jay will continue to laud all this redistribution of our nations wealth to satisfy the dregs of our society!
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
10:59 am
I’m sorry, Bosch, but I don’t see your point. If you can’t back up your statements, then don’t make them. It really isn’t a stretch to understand how close we are to Socialism right now, with all the talk about potential nationalizing of banks, propping up industries, mandating CEO salaries, mandating lending and banking policies, and the thousands of regulations such as from OSHA, the IRS, etc, etc, etc.
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
10:59 am
Dave R,
Wrote that post @ 10:51 before I saw yours at 10:48 – sorry.
“the MANAGEMENT of the private sector and the economy is done through the millions of pages of laws enacted by Congress”
What are you smoking? That’s not one bit true.
The government is having to step in and help these poor bozos in the corporate world because they’ve ruined our economy by their greed and own self-interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
Now you want to call that socialism – fine – call it whatever you like, and hell, temporarily it might be, but in my opinion, the government does not want to see capitalism fail and has no plans to permanently take over the private sector and produce and distribute goods.
If anything, I see our government trying to get that process BACK in the hands of the private sector – big difference.
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
11:01 am
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
10:33 am
“No more blaming Bush because this recession is officially Obama Hussein’s.” Sorry, but this is Bush’s baby and O! is just carrying it to term.
Cuba would be doing much better except for our hostile trade policy. And its education and health care systems are good considering the poverty. We haven’t had true capitalism at least since the Great Depression. How Many times has the government had to step in and bail out big business, usually during or right after a Republican administration? And we aren’t the richest or greatest (subjective) country on Earth. It’s that kind of arrogance that makes so many hate us. In case you’ve forgotten, Bush stepped in to keep the world wide banking system from collapsing and it’s still teetering on the brink. Obama is just continuing that policy, but on steroids. I think it’s to protect the hedge funds, but really don’t understand it all and have no idea. At this point we have to trust the “experts,” the ones that got us into this mess.
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
11:01 am
Paul,
My intelligene works JUST fine, thank you very much!
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:02 am
Down with the wasteful FU-2 Raptures. The design does not even incorporate turret-mounted LASERs. What a waste of billions of dollars for something that’s not even remotely in step with the Stars Wars Trilogy. Death Star. Now, that’s an end times tool that any war-monger would salivate over. You can’t have that either, war-mongers, unless you pay for it yourself.
WhoCares
February 27th, 2009
11:02 am
40 acres and a mule!
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
11:05 am
WhoCares
February 27th, 2009
11:02 am
Great idea! Back to the simple life.
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
11:06 am
It’s sad to to see so many jealous of people that are productive/ambitious/sucessfull. I guess the easy way out is to let the government take care of you and all of your needs. Me, up until the re-distribute of wealth agenda left took control, was always looking for ways to better myself and my family. I now will wait for the government to tell me. This notion that the poor and middle class can not prosper because the mean ol rich is just wrong in so many way’s. We are becoming the robot society and the majority of people on this blog are ok with it. Whatever happened to individuality? People used to what to strive to be the best they could be.Now,there’s the intiative. I don’t want to be the same as my neighbors,I strive to be better.I try to ensure that my children do the same. It’s sad to think that the majority of this country believes that getting by is just ok. Or that the Government should make sure that we are fed,educated,health maintained,& gainfully employed. I can achieve these things on my own,through self determination,education,self belief!
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:15 am
Let’s just give these members of the minority party their socialism and be done with it. Let’s get them wired into the collective with their Wi-Fi’d Blackberries and Blueberries and Rasberries and then mount the little tools onto the machine and put them to work doing something productive. We don’t need no steenking constipationists or wanna-be anarchists or conservatised librarians. We need hammers and nails to put to work for the common good. So, it’s about time we drive that point home.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
11:15 am
Taxpayer? can’t you answer a single question as directly?
Observer
February 27th, 2009
11:18 am
TnGelding – In your 11:01 post, you said, “We haven’t had true capitalism at least since the Great Depression. How Many times has the government had to step in and bail out big business, usually during or right after a Republican administration?”
I assume your question was rhetorical. If so, please answer it for us. How many times has the government had to bail out big business? Apparently, according to you, it happened rather frequently following the administrations of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (41) and Bush (43).
Eric
February 27th, 2009
11:20 am
119 comments later, and still not one lefty who can clearly explain HOW WE PAY FOR ALL OF THIS!
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:21 am
Dave R. I am going to share this with you just this once. I am ignoring you from now on and I will no longer direct a comment to your label. So, if you want to have an exchange with me, your first step will be to try (be warned that I might still choose to ignore you) to contact me under a different label.
Have a good day.
BDAtlanta
February 27th, 2009
11:21 am
Taxing hedge fund managers. That’s change you can believe in.
So, why were they not taxed before? They couldn’t be bothered to pay into a society that allows them to operate the way they do?
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:22 am
For anyone who is against guns. This lady puts everyone of you to shame.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl
TnGelding,
Ms. Gelding, I do not take anything you say seriously. Anyone who defends communism over capitalism is a complete moron.
Taxpayer,
then start learning the Chinese language, comrade. Because without state of the art weaponry we will be overtaken. By the way, for someone who complains about job loses, you’re looking mighty hypocritical right now. Because if you shut down the manufacturing of the greatest fighter jet in the world, you shut down jobs.
Observer
February 27th, 2009
11:22 am
Dave – For Taxpayer to answer a question directly, he would have to actually have a clue about his subject matter. He would have to rely on things foreign to him – like actual facts instead of hyperbole and talking points. Instead, he pollutes this board with his incessant ramblings.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
11:23 am
Bosch, so all those millions of lines in the U.S. code are just for fun?
What do you think they are regulating – i.e., managing? Business! Tell me that OSHA rules don’t regulate business, that IRS laws don’t regulate business, that the CRA doesn’t regulate banking, that Sarbanes-Oxley doesn’t regulate business. How about EPD and EPA rules? Tell me the thousands of other, nameless laws are not out there to regulate and manage business.
And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:23 am
TnGelding,
if republicans are the ones bailing out big business explain Obama Hussein.
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:25 am
Tax dollars pay for what is spent. Lots and lots and lots of tax dollars will pay for what has been spent. Over 400 billion tax dollars go to pay the annual interest on what we have borrowed from others.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:26 am
Eric,
I was thinking about this. If libs are all for spending their way out of debt it might actually be a good thing. I’d love to see Jay Bookman and the rest of these half-wits spend their way out of debt. They’d all go bankrupt. Libs are indeed a hypocritical bunch of baboons. Oh, and I mean baboons in the highest regard, because as you know, libs all believe that we came from monkeys. Just giving them props.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
11:26 am
Thank you, Taxpayer. You’ve just proved to me and everyone else out here that you are afraid to answer direct questions asked of you.
Brave, brave, liberal, you!
Now, do you have anything useful to say about – anything? Or do you just favor mindless slogans like “Down with the FU-2 Raptor”.
BDAtlanta
February 27th, 2009
11:26 am
Eric, after 8 years of lowering taxes while fighting a war, you are now concerned with how we are going to pay for stuff?
Lowering taxes during a war is maybe the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
Are you for real?
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:27 am
Taxpayer,
you’re bitching about the F-22 yet you say NOTHING about the billions going towards worthless $hit in the stimulus package.
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
11:28 am
Eric-You used the correct use of the word “WE”, in your question. Do you really believe the government or in this case the “We Know better,caues we are smarter than you!” left cares who pay’s for this unprecedented TAX?
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:28 am
BDAtlanta,
the cost of war compared to the cost of the stimulus is lopsided.
Paul
February 27th, 2009
11:30 am
HillyBilly Deluxe
Sen Dirksen was one of those guys who could say just about anything ’cause people liked the sound of his voice. But it’s time for an update ‘a Trillion here and a Trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!’
Bosch 11:01
Aw, frak, I thought I had you there (I didn’t really. I just wanted to say “frak.”)
Dave R
Now that Taxpayer’s responded to your post regarding continuation of the F-22, I’d like to offer a couple points for consideration.
The F-22’s a great fighter. Stealthier than the first stealth fighter. Goes really fast. Maneuvers like a BattleStar Galactica Viper. And it’s really, really, really expensive. A couple hundred million a pop. Or more, depending on the accounting.
Sure, F-15s and F-16s are old. But I think the “my dad flew this, said the F-15 pilot” is misleading. The F-15s (and 16s) of today are not his (or hers) father’s aircraft. I doubt there is one nut or bolt that hasn’t been replaced along the way when they’ve gone back to the depot for maintenance. Avionics, flight systems, nearly everything’s been upgraded. There are even different series (the letter at the end of 15 or 16) that designates a major improvement. Kinda like taking a beloved 1975 Chevy and upgrading it with a fuel injected engine, air bags, new sound system, reinforced frame, new suspension, lane avoidance sensors, auto dimming headlights… you get the idea. Oh, and it’s been stripped to the frame a couple times and the panels have been replaced. But it still looks like a 75 Chevy.
Those systems take years, decades even, to bring into production. And they’re supposed to begin as an answer to a problem. Remember, this thing was under development while the Air Force was still rejecting drones like Predators, didn’t have the stand-off precision munitions we now have, didn’t have the AWACS integration (those big Boeings with the radar domes that can pick out a sparrow at a couple hundred miles so the fighter pilot can launch an air to air missile from a hundred miles away and never have to worry about dogfighting) and a host of other redundant technologies.
It’s good, yes. And the military’s supposed to plan for ‘all’ threats. But I’ll offer many view this aircraft is a lot like, say, a follow-on for bombers: lots of ‘wow’ factor, outdoes what anybody else’s bomber does… but not very good value for money. Or attacking the threats we’ll be engaging for the next few years.
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:30 am
Taxing hedge fund managers is a good start, BD. Also, I see Commie is going to start contributing to the whole by teaching us Chinese. That’s so thoughtful. By the way production of FU-2 Raptures may provide jobs for a few and tons of cash for some of the war-mongers but they are then used to take lives instead of enhancing lives. That’s bad. We have had enough bad to last us lifetimes. Take that money and spend it on enhancing lives or just cut it from the budget and help to reduce the deficit.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:31 am
Jay Bookman,
I just have to ask this of you. Does your life suck that much? The reason I ask is because I have noticed a common trend with libs. Every single one of your articles is about trashing someone else. From Bush to Palin, you seem to hate anyone whom you disagree with.
Observer
February 27th, 2009
11:34 am
I was just reading some of the reports on Obama’s proposal to increase corporate taxes by $350 billion and I was struck with an interesting thought. As a general rule, corporations don’t pay taxes, they merely collect them from their customers and pass them on to the IRS. This is done in the form of raising prices on goods and services to offset the increased budgetary expense of taxes. Since the resulting price increase will have a disproportionately adverse effect on those with lower incomes, isn’t this unfairly taxing the poor?
Gosh, for eight years I‘ve been listening to liberals rail against this very practice. Hmmm.
Paul
February 27th, 2009
11:34 am
BDAtlanta
[[So, why were they not taxed before? ]]
Good question for SecState Clinton when she was Senator Clinton and resisted such a change. I’m sure all the $$$$ she got in campaign contributions (not just her, but many, many others, too) from her constituents (Hedge Fund Managers!) had absolutely nothing to do with it…
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Dave R,
Seriously? Regulations do not manage businesses, the regulations are there to protect workers and taxpayers. Too bad the businesses like the peanut corp. didn’t pay any attention to those and now we are left with tainted peanut products for years – and God knows how many people will get salmonella and die from those pesky laws that they ignored.
And OSHA? Oh yeah, those guys are really annoying. Setting standards for business practices so workers don’t work in asbestos filled fogs, and lob off a few fingers or other body parts – yeah, those rules suck. Hell, why stop there, bring back the 10 year olds working in the factories – damn, lazy drogs.
And the CRA? Well apparently they’ve been asleep.
Yeah, those damn regulations and rules put forth by the government to keep us safe – who needs ‘em right?
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
11:35 am
OK, Commie. Here’s something about the crap in the stimulus — the tax cuts were a bad idea.
Dogs Against Management
February 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Whiner,
I for one like your new name.
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
11:38 am
Commie-pretty astute. You can say that about quite a few here. Realistic thoughts and common sense is far and few between.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:39 am
Taxpayer,
ah yes, tax cuts are bad. You know absolutely nothing about business, comrade.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:40 am
caz1158, libs don’t care about facts. Only good intentions and touchy feely crap that makes them feel good about things.
RW-(the original)
February 27th, 2009
11:43 am
Paul,
What’s up with calling Hillbilly Deluxe, HillyBilly? It’s not like you to mess with people’s names.
Nice analogy on the F-22, but wasn’t Chevy making crap like the Vega in 1975? You might want to back that one down to the 50’s the next time you trot it out.
Bosch,
I think I’m older than you so barring any time bending you would be the clone in Paul’s scenario. Scary ain’t it?
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
11:46 am
Bosch-I agree,but not entirely. Yes the greedy owners (peanut plant owners that is) did what they wanted to ensure profits without any thoughts of safety. But OSHA is a joke!! I see them once every 2-3 years,in a industry that cry’s out for better conditions. They are just another government agency that wastes (dollars) just as much as the companies(envirmental) that they are paid to watchover.
Richard
February 27th, 2009
11:46 am
a budget that represents unachievable financial goals , negative cash flow and and optimism that taxes will be raised from over $250,000 income earners. Is the administration so myopic to not relaize these earners will not support the rabble below them in this conversion to socialism and we will soon see the biggest expodus of earnings and assets in the history of this country ( to go along with the rape of our fiscal responsibility of our poor government lack of leadership )
reader110
February 27th, 2009
11:50 am
Don’t worry, folks, good ol’ Sonny will turn down the stimulus funds. Then all you conservatives will be happy, right? Gee, I hope none of you loses your job…well, actually, maybe I hope you do.
RW-(the original)
February 27th, 2009
11:51 am
See if you can fill in the blanks properly, but I warn you you’ll have to shut off 99% of your intelligene and get in touch with your inner moonbat to get it right.
President _________is using our military as props to try to sell us his Iraq policy
President _________ is proving what a fine Commander in Chief he is by addressing the troops with his Iraq policy.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
11:54 am
Bosch, we’re not talking about avionics and radar here. We’re talking airframes. The ones that have had thousands of bone-jarring carrier landings, catapult shots and high-G ACM stresses throughout their entire lives. You can change out the little things, but the airframes are still the airframes.
And we’re not talking about BUFFs (B-52 bombers) here, either. We’re talking fighters. High maneuverability, high G fighters. If we don’t start building for the next threat now, when it comes, we won’t have spit to throw at our enemies.
Maybe we can just drop Hillary on a target? It would solve two problems.
Eric
February 27th, 2009
11:57 am
BDAtlanta, how do you know I haven’t been yelling this same thing for years and years? It’s a great way to deflect from answering the question I asked, so I’ll just assume you don’t have an answer either.
Lefties wanted this job. They won in 2006. They won some more in 2008. Contrats, you got your wish. Now answer the damn question: HOW DO WE PAY FOR THIS?
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
11:59 am
Taxpayer-Granted it has been 30years now since college. But business/economics 101 taught us that the more money you have,the more you have to invest/save/or spend. Of course the less you have or someone takes(ie,the goverment) the less we as individuals have to invest/save/or spend. Now if you are one to believe that we work to support others than I guess tax cuts are a bad thing. Me I want as much of MY money as I can get,call me crazy.
Paul
February 27th, 2009
11:59 am
RW-(the original) and HillyBilly Deluxe
No slight intended. I suppose I was just thinking ahead to what I was writing. Same as I used to just write RW but then realized it’d be like typing Ja instead of Jay.
Dave R
I believe the F-22 was one of the systems SecDef Rumsfield was talking about when he first became SecDef and said we should just skip the current generation of replacement weapons in the pipeline. Wait a bit, let these other technologies develop (sensors, stealth, remote control, etc) develop and then design anew.
But we know how the Pentagon, industry and politicians with local job interests bought that idea -
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
12:06 pm
And Bosch, I’ll admit that some regulation is needed; again, for those who would take my life, liberty or property through the use of force or fraud.
But THOUSANDS of laws? And MILLIONS of lines of code?
I’ll ask my question again:
How many of you out there growing up in the 50’s or 60’s came down with salmonella? Ever heard of an outbreak back then? They were still making food in factories back then. You think if maybe all those businesses weren’t having to concentrate on all the little things that can now get them thrown in jail, they’d be able to care of the big things?
And I’m not letting the jackalope running the Peanut Co. off the hook. If negligent, he should go to jail and have whatever assets or insurance left go to the families of people who were harmed.
oldmac
February 27th, 2009
12:06 pm
Someday some of you limousine libs that voted for Barry are going to realize that theres a bag over your head it’s rapidly filling with helium. Despite your kicking an screaming you’re being held down and even though you’d like to take it back, soon it will all be over………Thanks.
MN
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
12:10 pm
Eric, it is amazing that all these wonderful, concerned Beautiful People on this blog can’t answer your simple question.
Or won’t.
We all know Taxpayer is chicken. (sorry to insult the barnyard fowl out there)
Robert C
February 27th, 2009
12:14 pm
Jay -
I remember you writing that you were a Ford Republican or something to that effect until the party went off and left you when Reagan was elected. If you felt that way once, what is it going to take for the Democrats to go off and leave you? Even a Ford Republican must surely be having doubts by now.
Gordon
February 27th, 2009
12:15 pm
I don’t normally make contributions to this blog, and I don’t intend to become a regular (too many personal attacks), but I wanted to make a few points.
1) The REAL deficit and debt is much larger than what is reported. This is because the government uses cash accounting (reporting what is owed right now) versus accrual accounting (reporting what is owed now and in the future). Using accrual accounting, which the government rightly forces corporations to use, future obligations must be converted to a net present value and be reported as a liability. The company I work for has a pension plan, and it owes me money in the future. It reports that liability. Under present law, the government owes me money in the future through Medicare and Social Security. It does not report that as a liability. The true debt is over 50 trillion dollars, and the true deficit is several trillion dollars. Let that sink in for a moment.
2) I don’t understand why some people think it is a valid argument to say that “your party sure didn’t have any problem spending money so why do you complain if my party does.” Spending money we don’t have is wrong no matter who does it. It is a moral issue.
3) Where does the confidence many of you have in the federal government to solve problems come from? If someone came here from another planet and had no preconceived ideas about how education, poverty, immigration, energy, or almost any other issue should be solved, do you think they would be impressed looking at the track record of the federal government? At this late date, do any of you on the left REALLY believe that all of this spending is going to solve these problems? Do any of you who back Republicans believe things would be that much different if they were in charge? Which leads me to my final point…
4) The differences between the two political parties in this country are very small compared to the problems we face. As an “outsider” who sometimes scans this blog, I am amazed at the time spent arguing about nothing while our way of life slowly passes away. Eventually there will be no takers for Treasury Bills, and then what? Maybe all of you know the truth and this blog is just a place to pass the time.
I’ll get off my soapbox now….
caz1158
February 27th, 2009
12:20 pm
Gordon-Well Said,Bravo!!!
Paul
February 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
Dave R
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of 40000 cases and 400 deaths a year from salmonella has been consitent for quite a few years. That’s major cases. Including milder cases, actual number could be up to 30 times higher.
Like I’ve said before, we get laws when people’s conduct is detrimental to others and there are little, if any, penalties.
If that takes thousands of new laws or rules, so be it.
Paul
February 27th, 2009
12:28 pm
Gordon
[[3) Where does the confidence many of you have in the federal government to solve problems come from?]]
I suppose it depends on the topic. I think the military (part of the federal government) does a pretty good job of ’solving problems’ when they’re given a rational mission by their civilian overseers.
I think federal creations like the earlier mentioned Centers for Disease Control and Inspection do a pretty good job of solving problems relating to disease outbreaks.
I think the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission can do a pretty good job (operative word is ‘can’) – at least it’s better than what would happen if they didn’t exist.
I think the FBI does a pretty good job in solving kidnappings, corporate fraud cases, etc.
I think the gov’t can do a pretty darn good job with health care – at least, if you’re a member of the military or a dependent.
I think the EPA does a pretty good job of going after people who pollute waterways.
The Coast Guard does a decent job, with the resources we give them, of safeguarding our… coasts? Better than letting each coastal state do it, I’d imagine.
Gordon
February 27th, 2009
12:41 pm
Paul,
Each of the things you mentioned, with the exception of health care, I agree with. And they all are things, along with immigration and energy, that most people would agree belong in the federal government’s domain. The costs for these things and others like them does not approach $4 trillion per year even with the inefficiency of government built in.
Copyleft
February 27th, 2009
12:43 pm
Eric: I thought the answer was obvious: cut unneeded programs, allow some tax cuts to expire, and increase tax rates to their proper (and needed) levels across the board.
Don’t forget, in the conservative Dream Era of the 1950s, corporate tax rates were much higher–and the top income-tax rate was 90%! Did America crash and burn? Gee, it did not. Tax rates aren’t the sole determining factor of our economy… and yet, the GOP has been held hostage to that notion for more than 20 years now, obsessed with “tax cuts” as the solution to any and all problems.
Good thing for America they’re out of power now, so more sensible people can start setting policy based on something OTHER than blind economic ideology.
Reality
February 27th, 2009
12:44 pm
So, explain to me why our household, which makes over $250K, are being penalized for our success, and are expected to pay MORE for those who are irresponsible and poor decision makers???
As background, my wife and I are both professionals (we had significant student loans – which we repaid) and pay our taxes (including signficant property taxes which we lose as we choose to send our children to private school).
Again, why penalize success and reward failure????
Bosch
February 27th, 2009
12:53 pm
Dave R @ 11:54
I really have abssolutely no idea what you are talking about there – sorry. I’m really glad we are not talking avionics and radar, because I don’t even know what that means. And if we were talking airframes, then wow, that’s great! My intelligene must be working really hard because I don’t even know what the hell that is, but if I was talking it, then that’s super fantastic.
@ 12:10
I had to run out, but Paul kind of answered for me. Although I didn’t know about the CDC stuff.
But yeah, in the peanut case, the regulations were there but the companies ignored them – so much government management, huh?
Paul,
Did you hear? My intelligene is working great! I was talking airframes and I don’t even know what that is! See I told ya’ it was working just fine.
reservoirDAWG
February 27th, 2009
12:54 pm
One Big Ass Mistake America.
Ayn Rand was righ
February 27th, 2009
12:57 pm
So, now that the election is over, it’s ok to call it redistribution of wealth? We now have a new strategy. Stop growing our businesses, no more employees, reduce the current work force and prepare for departure or income reduction to no more than $249,999.99 by 2010. Great job Obama!
Taxpayer
February 27th, 2009
1:00 pm
Republicans! Always wanting everything for nothing until there’s a Democrat in charge. Then and only then do these members of the minority party come crawling out from under their beds and complaining about paying for what a democrat puts out there for a budget. Well, why not let these complainers have everything on the debt and deficit that was put there by the Republicans and we’ll take care of the rest. Have fun with that if any of you are even smart enough to figure out how much that is. I sure have not seen any evidence of it.
William
February 27th, 2009
1:00 pm
Is it true that as CNN reported that the Hate groups increased as reported but that actual membership was not part of the increased calcualtion? Were additional groups renamed as hate groups in order to senastionalize the issue?
With the rise in unemployment and the backtracking of the Obama administrations enforcement of immigration enforcement does anyone believe that there will be additional friction towards minority groups if unemployed legal citizens feel as though illegal immigrants are taking jobs?
Do you think that the cost of wars have been added to budget in order to mask the other increases in other areas?
By keeping the cost of the wars as a seperate item did this not give a better idea of the amount the wars cost versus including the cost in the normal budget?
If Clinton was called Slick Willie then what will be an appropriate nickname for Obama?
fed up
February 27th, 2009
1:11 pm
Reality @ 12:44 I think it’s the new American way….punish those that make good choices and give to those that don’t. Forgetting that those that made those good choices employ thousands of Americans… O.B.A.M.A.
William
February 27th, 2009
1:15 pm
When businesses or corporations pay more taxes does the consumer pay for the tax thru higher prices? Do you think when Walmart has to pay higher taxes they will take it out of their profit? Will businesses and corporations cut back on other expenses (labor, etc.) in order to cover the additional tax expense if they do not raise their prices? Will oil and and gas companies pass along the increase in taxes to the consumer in form of higher prices on gas? Since the federal government taxes the price of gas don’t they get a double hit by forcing the price of gas up which in turn raises additional revenues?
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 27th, 2009
1:17 pm
To Paul
I figured you calling me HillyBilly was a typo and thought nothing of it.
B
February 27th, 2009
1:17 pm
Why do we need to bring home any money? Obviously the gov knows what better to do with it than we do. If obama is smart enough to put good ole joe in charge of the stimulus going to the states then he would def be wiser with our money than we would be.
Obama Fever
February 27th, 2009
1:31 pm
The Wall Street Journal (yesterday) stated that in order to pay for the federal 2010 budget, every taxpayer earning $75k or more would have to be taxed 100%–meaning the person would work for an entire year with absolutely no take-home pay.
Obama’s plan returns $13 per week to an individual’s paycheck. I can’t wait for all those folks to start new businesses with their “extra” $13. Want a job? Ask a poor person. That’s Obama’s trickle-up economics.
Think it’ll work? Watch the Dow(n).
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
1:37 pm
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
11:23 am
He’s coming right AFTER a Republican.
I don’t hate America. I hate what politicians have done in her name. America doesn’t lauch preemptive strikes. America doesn’t torture. America doesn’t spy on its citizens without due cause. America doesn’t fire bomb, napalm or nuke women and children. America doesn’t shoot its own citizens fleeing inhumane living conditions. America doesn’t kill elderly citizens defending their homes from invasion. America doesn’t refuse to pay its way as it selfishly sits on trillions of wealth. America doesn’t inject itself into family medical decisions. Etc., etc.
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
1:47 pm
TnGelding,
America doesn’t launch preemptive strikes. Ok, then explain how every single democrat who voted for the war said that we should never let Saddam have weapons?
Yes, Barrack Hussein IS coming after a Republican president. A PRESIDENT WHO HAD DEMOCRATS CONTROLLING CONGRESS! These new policies belong to Obama. Not Bush. Obama’s policies are the very reason we are in trouble right now. The stimulus didn’t work back in October and they will not work now. What do you not understand?
Please also explain to me the theory of spending your way out of debt. Never in business have I ever dealt with ANYONE who said that spending your way out of debt is good.
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
1:51 pm
Observer
February 27th, 2009
11:18 am
I wrote “usually.” I’m supposed to answer my own rhetorical questions?
I’m sure you know them better than I. But I was thinking Great Depression, S&L and the current banking “investment.” There have been individual cases, also; Chrysler, Penn Central and some steel companies(?). I found this after you questioned me:
http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
2:04 pm
CommunistAJC
February 27th, 2009
1:47 pm
The Democrats were voting on what Bush and his team told them. They didn’t vote for going to war, they didn’t have the guts. They voted to give Bush the authority to use force if he deemed it necessary.
Obama’s policies are a result of what Bush left him. Quite a mess indeed.
O! isn’t borrowing to get out of debt, he’s borrowing to lessen the impact of the recession and to try to avoid a depression. As I’ve stated before, I don’t like it much either. But what is the alternative?
It just didn’t make any sense to me to run up $11 trillion in debt as we sat on $60 trillion in household wealth (before this latest meltdown). Why can’t we pay for the government we have or force the pols to reduce its size if we aren’t willing to pay for it?
Copyleft
February 27th, 2009
2:56 pm
Again we see the obsession with viewing taxes as “punishment” and tax cuts as “rewards.” This isn’t a dog-training academy. Taxes are an entirely legitimate NEED for a government to function.
The only question is how to apportion the tax rates fairly, with an eye toward both our spending needs and our ideals as a society. “Deregulate for the rich” is not an American ideal, so we’re dropping it in favor of something more just.
And those of us who have benefited the most, economically, from living and operating in our society, are not magically exempt from owing anything BACk to that society in return.
“The Free Market” may not like such a principle, but I search the Constitution in vain for any reference to the Free Market being sacrosanct… or even preferable.
Observer
February 27th, 2009
3:06 pm
TnGelding – Interesting website. I’ll have to spend some time reading it. At first glance I’m sceptical because it refers to the government making loans to Chrysler in 1980 which is VERY misleading. The government never loaned money to Chrysler instead, they offered Chrysler loan guarantees which enabled Chrysler to negotiate loans from commercial sources. Let it be noted for the record that Chrysler paid all of the loans back ahead of schedule.
Eric
February 27th, 2009
3:29 pm
Copyleft, bravo to you for at least being honest.
Now that we’ve established you’re OK with jacking up tax rates (because that definitely won’t hurt the economy, right?), would you care to tell me a SINGLE “unneeded program” you want to cut that will amount to anything more than a DROP IN THE BUCKET? Because “cut unneeded programs” is pretty vague.
Jake
February 27th, 2009
4:01 pm
In general deficit spending is not a good thing, but it’s not the worst thing either. People often get really excited about ’spending their grandchildren’s future’ when, of course, deficit spending doesn’t and can’t do that. At least this time, some of the money is going to infrastructure and technology improvements and social programs for the less fortunate, rather than welfare for the rich and alternately blowing up and rebuilding countries whose citizens want to kill us.
stine
February 27th, 2009
4:01 pm
re: TnGelding @ 9:01: No, I have never cheated on my taxes, they are complicated enough as it is. Why would i want to make them even more so.
With that said, i think the income tax should be 1) swapped for sales tax, or 2) set at a single percentage rate that does not vary by income and do away with all deductions….period.
Copyleft
February 27th, 2009
4:13 pm
Sure, Eric. We can start with all corporate tax loopholes, which amount to a good $50 billion per year.
Then we can eliminate the salary cap on Social Security (instantly making it solvent); restore the estate tax ($100 million per year); and nudge the capital-gains tax rate back up to its pre-Bush level (at least $160 billion per year).
Then there’s the Department of Homeland Security (annual budget: $50 billion), which has STILL failed to integrate systems, share information, or even secure our ports.
The Defense Departments oh-so-bloated projects with no modern purpose, other than to “provide jobs” (and make no-bid contractors happy). Over $2.3 TRILLION has been wasted or simply “lost” in this decade alone.
Our military’s use of third-party contractors such as Halliburton for basic services that used to be done in-house (and with much better quality and service for our soldiers, by the way) has wasted over $460 billion in Iraq alone.
Need more?
Pogo
February 27th, 2009
4:32 pm
Exactly when did we get to the point where we now consider spending more money that we don’t have is going to be the better thing for us? It goes against the principles of everything that has ever been acceptable in basic economics. That is the strange thing about things that are considered basic. They have always held up to the test of time but for some unknown reason (maybe it is not so unknown considering that politics has now become the dominant force in nature and it is totally ignoring the rules of everything we know is right) we choose to ignore them. Obama has flipped. Bush had flipped. Pelosi has always been flipped and I would like to know exactly where good old rationale has gone? Jay, you and your toadies here love Obama. We know that and we know that you are more than willing to ignore anything he does in order to walk the walk of the liberal lemming. But do you really believe that this endless deficit spending in quantities never before known to mankind is a “good thing”? I mean, if you do, for the sake of your political beliefs, then you are sad creatures indeed.
Jake
February 27th, 2009
4:42 pm
Pogo – The theory is that overall it’s better for the economy as a whole (unemployment, probably the worst evil) to bail out GM and Citigroup with deficit financing than to let them fail. I’m willing to try the failure route but what may theoretically be better or worse is moot. What is politically expedient is all that matters.
Copyleft
February 27th, 2009
4:59 pm
Pogo: Do some reading on the complexities of market forces and the array of policy tools government has available to respond to them.
The current choice is between deficit spending (often questionable) and a risk of inflation (bad)… compared to prolonged recession and increased unemployment (far, far worse). Interest-rate cuts are no longer available; tax cuts alone are too weak a tool to stimulate the economy. All that’s left is some deficit spending, which is what we’re doing.
Is deficit spending “good”? Of course not. Is it better than a depression and record unemployment? You betcha. And if deficit spending can prevent that outcome, it’s a necessary measure.
SL3
February 27th, 2009
5:06 pm
If Obama doesn’t stop this insane spending spree we are in deep sh*t. Where do you think most of the wealthy have their money? Stock market and real estate. Both are dropping everyday so his new higher tax rate will tax at least half as much wealth producing less revenue and eliminating even more jobs. Hopefully in 2 years we can elect some fiscal responsible people up there and turn this around.
saywhat?
February 27th, 2009
5:56 pm
by DaveR:”But government should exist ONLY to protect me from those who would take my life, liberty or property through the use of force or fraud. That’s IT!”
Also by DaveR:”What do you think they are regulating – i.e., managing? Business! Tell me that OSHA rules don’t regulate business, that IRS laws don’t regulate business, that the CRA doesn’t regulate banking, that Sarbanes-Oxley doesn’t regulate business. How about EPD and EPA rules? Tell me the thousands of other, nameless laws are not out there to regulate and manage business.”
Which is it dave? Should we have Sarbanes-Oxley “to prevent those who would take our property by fraud” or not? Should we regulate food producers so they don’t “deprive us of life” via poisoned food products or not? When a business viloates EPA regs and pollutes the environment we live in, and damages our property (remember Love Canal?), have we not been deprived of property?
On the one hand you claim to want the government to do one thing, but on the other you decry the government when they do it. Before you try changing anybody elses mind, perhaps you ought to make up your own first.
Are you the sole arbiter of who needs what protection from whom, or are the rest of us free to decide what represents a threat to our life liberty and property?
saywhat?
February 27th, 2009
6:06 pm
DaveR said :”And I’m not letting the jackalope running the Peanut Co. off the hook. If negligent, he should go to jail and have whatever assets or insurance left go to the families of people who were harmed.”
So what you are saying is that you would rather have your child killed by poisoned peanut butter and possibly recieve compensation after the fact, than have government regulations in place to prevent the poisoning in the first place.
This of course assumes you were able to afford the 2-3 year long lawsuit it would require against a multibillion dollar corporation to get the possible compensation.
saywhat?
February 27th, 2009
6:15 pm
Dave R said: “And I’m not letting the jackalope running the Peanut Co. off the hook. If negligent, he should go to jail and have whatever assets or insurance left go to the families of people who were harmed.”
So you would prefer your child needlessly suffer and die of food poisoning and possibly receive some compensation* after the fact, rather than regulate food production in order to reduce the chances of this happening?
* This assumes you can afford, and win, the 2-3 year lawsuit necessary to sue a multimillion dollar corporation
Wow! Sign me up as a Constitutionalist too!
saywhat?
February 27th, 2009
6:17 pm
Woops! Sorry for the nearly identical post, it took alot longer to show up than previous entries. I thought I had mis-entered it.
Surprise
February 27th, 2009
9:09 pm
“…Obama’s agenda seeks to foster a redistribution of wealth,…” Jay – at last, socialism defined. Add in “punish success and reward failure” and we have further defined the present and future of the U.S…sad, very sad!!!!
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
10:40 pm
stine
February 27th, 2009
4:01 pm
Well, some people cheat because they don’t have the money to pay them. I commend you for your honesty, but I would bet you’re in the minority.
You’re right about the need to collect taxes in a simpler way. We’re wasting way too much time and money trying to comply with the tax code.
TnGelding
February 27th, 2009
11:01 pm
SL3
February 27th, 2009
5:06 pm
The wealthy have a good bit “invested” in tax-free municipal bonds. They prefer tax dodges and Ponzi schemes over U.S. treasuries.
Dave R
February 27th, 2009
11:11 pm
Saywhat?,
I can take care of myself. if someone such as the CEO of the Peanut Co. does something that takes the life of a loved one, there are criminal laws in place that I can use to punish him. There are civil laws I can use to punish him. And I only have to do it once to make him stop doing it again. I don’t need a government looking over his shoulder taxes, OSHA, EPD, health, etc, etc, etc.
If he wasn’t so damned busy trying to cross every “T” and dot every “I” that the government wants him to, he might have been able to pay attention to his plant a bit better.
Same with any company reagrding Sarbanes-Oxley. It is far too easy for people to let the government take over the private sector, when it is within our power to do so through the courts. If I don’t like what a company I’m doing business with is doing, I have every right to pull whatever money I have in it and put it elsewhere. If I find they have been cooking the books, I can go after them in either civil or criminal court, depending on the severity of the infraction. I don’t need the government to tell them what to do – I can do that.
But its soooooo easy to just give up our rights to the Almighty and all-powerful Federal Government to do all our work for us.
And in the end, they can’t do anything right for us.
Sorry, but I’m better than any bureaucrat on this planet at taking care of my own problems. I’m just not lazy, like 75% of Americans have become.
Copyleft
February 28th, 2009
8:42 am
DaveR, did you miss the part where the courts and laws you rely on ARE the government? Your only recourse to defend yourself from another’s wrongful acts is — ta-daa! — THE GOVERNMENT.
Dave R
February 28th, 2009
2:03 pm
Sorry, copyleft, they are NOT. They may create the laws I referenced, but those are for penalties for criminal activity. Civil litigation is NOT an act of government (except that it is within a court system – another thing we do not need in civil trials).
And remember, I have always said that government is a necessary evil. It just needs to be as small as possible, not the size you and your lib buddies want.