As a share of GDP, Obama has the US deficit falling from this year’s post-war high of 12% to just 3%. Is that promise credible? The Economist believes Obama seems more fiscally honest than George Bush, whose accounting gimmicks vied with Enron’s. Mr Bush’s budgets routinely excluded unavoidable outlays, such as those for wars and natural disasters, incorporated tax increases and spending trims that he knew would never occur, and masked his policies’ impact on the deficit by shortening the forecast horizon to five years from ten. Mr Obama puts most of the missing items back in the budget, and restores its horizon to ten years.
To boost revenue, Mr Obama will let Mr Bush’s 2001 tax cuts for the 2% of richest Americans (typically those earning more than $250,000) expire as scheduled at the end of 2010. Corporations will no longer be able to exclude foreign-source income from tax. Many popular tax deductions, such as those for local taxes, mortgage interest, health- care premiums and charitable gifts, will be limited for the rich. A yet-to-be-designed cap-and-trade programme for carbon emissions will raise additional revenue. To curb spending, Mr Obama promises to remove most American troops from Iraq before the end of 2010, reduce payments to privately managed Medicare plans and find other health- care savings. Mr Obama told Congress in his address on the 24th that “everyone…will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.” Yet the evidence of such sacrifice remains scarce. He appears to earmark his tax increases and spending cuts mostly to pay for his long-standing priorities: making permanent the worker tax credit in the fiscal-stimulus plan; expanding public subsidies for health care and college education; investment in alternative energy; and extra deployments to Afghanistan. And he suggested that he will need more money to bail out banks than the $700 billion already authorised. A $250 billion facility is being set aside for this, one reason why this year's deficit is so huge. Most of the graphs I see on the world economy don't suggest we are going to see recovery any time soon. If you draw a straight line through the standard updrift of the markets, the current plunge has just about taken us back where we would have been if the 'new bent-pay- yourself- as-a film-star electronic accounting' practices had not taken place. No one seems to be talking about where we will need to bounce back to for any policies to work. Indeed, we don't seem to be doing anything about the bent accounting. On 27 Feb, 02:56, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “Government is the problem …” – DJ > “…How about a flat tax on all income and consumption?…” – DJ > > A child of the Reagan era perhaps? Clearly one who thinks that > government is the problem has little to no faith in the Constitution. > “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”. We are the > government. We elect representatives too. They reflect the people who > elect them sometimes. > > About the flat tax…I used to think it would be a great change. On the > surface, it makes sense in many ways. However, IF explored more fully, > it becomes abundantly clear that a flat tax is regressive, taking more > from those who can’t afford it than from those who can. Even Bill > Buckley, in a debate I watched a few decades ago felt strongly about > this. So, it isn’t something based on conservative/liberal ideology. > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Government is the problem because they manage the tax code. It's so > > confusing the guy hired to be in charge of it can't figure out how to > > pay his taxes. Let's make it easy. How about a flat tax on all > > income and consumption? Without the loopholes that are so abundant > > for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes. I love the idea. Of > > course, this would eliminate Congress's major power of > > reward/punishment ability so it will never happen. The bribes...oops, > > I mean campaign donations... would dry up. > > > dj > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, it is fran. Today many who pay a lot in taxes, not percentage > > > wise, but in amount based on a large income don't mind at all. Only a > > > select vocal few are heard in the media to the point that such > > > propaganda about the government being the problem (Ronnie)....has > > > become a common myth. I've said it many times...when I was a kid, my > > > father paid 91% of his income in taxes...and, we did VERY well....no > > > complaints. Today, in most cases, the poor pay a higher percentage of > > > their income in taxes than the rich. Robin Hood aside, this is absurd > > > no matter the argument. > > > > On Feb 25, 9:28 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Don's - of course - purely rhetorical suggestion about the non-payment > > >> of taxes seems to echo a certain US American mythology that there's > > >> something un-american about paying taxes, as well as there being > > >> something inherently suspect about (central) government. > > > >> Nobody likes paying taxes and very few would even consider paying more > > >> than they absolutely have to - including me. But I must also > > >> acknowledge that taxation is the basic method for paying for things > > >> which a country/community/society feels need to be organised > > >> collectively. It belongs to the basic ideas of self-definition of a > > >> country/community/society to decide what these collective tasks are > > >> and how far they should be funded by the common purse. > > > >> Even as a non-US American, I seem to remember that the rallying cry > > >> for the American Revolution was not, "No taxation," but rather "No > > >> taxation without representation." The USA established itself on this > > >> basis as a representative democracy. Everything else flows from that. > > >> To use the language of 18th Century political thinkers, that's the > > >> basic social contract and there's no way to opt out of it and back to > > >> the "state of nature." As far as I recall, the US fought a rather > > >> spectacular civil war about that very issue. Those who wanted the > > >> right to opt out lost. > > > >> None of this, of course, addresses problems of injustice within > > >> particular taxation systems. But, strictly seen, that's what has to be > > >> sorted out within the representative democracy framework. Or, if your > > >> conscientious objections lead you to refuse, then you must accept the > > >> consequences. In my opinion, that's the kind of bravery Orn is talking > > >> about. > > > >> Francis > > > >> On 25 Feb., 16:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > First, since the US stopped being serious about tariffs, taxes are > > >> > needed for the common good. The IRS has been under-funded for years > > >> > and the result(s) is they only go after those accounts that will be > > >> > easy to collect. read: the accounts of the non-powerful/non-rich. > > >> > Our founding fathers not only decided not to continue to pay their > > >> > taxes, but they took action that would have resulted in their death if > > >> > caught. Almost to a man, they died in poverty. Few today are as brave. > > > >> > On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > Sure, the Duty of Civil Disobedience, good ole Thoreau. Truthfully, > > >> > > they already have the tax money, now it's people filing returns > > >> > > hoping > > >> > > to get something back from the forced prepay plan. You can't get a > > >> > > job at any corporation if you tell them you will pay your own taxes > > >> > > from a 1099. The IRS spends hundreds of thousands on paper alone > > >> > > plus > > >> > > millions on salaried collectors and yes men. > > > >> > > On Feb 24, 7:05 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > I'm against rioting in the streets but I'm all for civil > > >> > > > disobedience. > > >> > > > If we en mass refused to pay federal taxes for last year I think we > > >> > > > might get Washington's attention. Start simply by applying for > > >> > > > extensions and taking every legal route to delay paying right up > > >> > > > until > > >> > > > the court order to pay and then just quietly say "No." > > > >> > > > Whatta ya say gang? Who's with me? > > > >> > > > dj > > > >> > > > Disclaimer: Above suggestion is purely rhetorical and I have no > > >> > > > intention of disobeying the law or avoiding my fiscal obligation > > >> > > > to my > > >> > > > country. Nor am I aware of any group planning to do so. All Hail > > >> > > > Obama! His truth is shining on. > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > That's what we need to happen gruff, then the world will realize > > >> > > > > that > > >> > > > > we never really did need the bashstards (scot accent) and that > > >> > > > > we can > > >> > > > > "Grow Food" without them. Banks are a system for the wealthy > > >> > > > > and that > > >> > > > > is why they are giving billions of dollars to the unscrupulous > > >> > > > > creeps > > >> > > > > that are throwing people out on the street instead of giving the > > >> > > > > money > > >> > > > > to the people who really need it. It's protectionism for > > >> > > > > society's > > >> > > > > elite. Are the banks lowering interest rates and refinancing? > > >> > > > > NO!! > > >> > > > > Illinois based Northern Trust just took $1.6 Billion dollars > > >> > > > > from the > > >> > > > > tax payers and went on a vacation jaunt in Southern California > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > hired the Band Chicago for $100,000, this all with Tax Payer > > >> > > > > Money. > > >> > > > > These people are spitting on us. Tax breaks that are going to > > >> > > > > give a > > >> > > > > family an extra $65 a month is pathetic. $600 to $1200 per > > >> > > > > family > > >> > > > > stimulus money is pathetic. They should give everyone $100,000 > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > stimulate the economy, but you see it's the economy of the rich > > >> > > > > that > > >> > > > > they want to stimulate. There will be rioting in the streets > > >> > > > > even if > > >> > > > > the banks don't collapse because people are starting to realize > > >> > > > > what > > >> > > > > Schleps they are and how tied into the economic Slavery program > > >> > > > > they > > >> > > > > are. Why should I give money to a bank that is throwing my > > >> > > > > friend out > > >> > > > > on the street when I could give the money to my friend instead? > > >> > > > > To > > >> > > > > Hell with the Bashstards!! > > > >> > > > > On Feb 23, 8:16 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> Banks, more than any other industry, can't be allowed to fail. > > >> > > > >> Financing and credit are so interwoven into the economies of all > > >> > > > >> nations that should the banks fail the entire economy would go > > >> > > > >> bust. This may not be right but, as one talking head noted > > >> > > > >> yesterday on the tube, lending has almost become a utility just > > >> > > > >> like > > >> > > > >> power and water. If the banks are allowed to fail, I'm afraid > > >> > > > >> society and civilization as we know it will also fail. Then > > >> > > > >> there > > >> > > > >> will be rioting in the streets, for certain. > > > >> > > > >> However, I agree that since the top four or five percent of the > > >> > > > >> world > > >> > > > >> owns and controls forty or more percent of the wealth, they > > >> > > > >> should be > > >> > > > >> called to account and to help. > > > >> > > > >> On Feb 17, 3:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I see people who have paid taxes for years being thrown out > > >> > > > >> > on the > > >> > > > >> > street by banks who are foreclosing on their homes while tax > > >> > > > >> > payer > > >> > > > >> > money is being doled out in billions to the same banks. Who > > >> > > > >> > are those > > >> > > > >> > people making millions of dollars every year taking tax > > >> > > > >> > payers money. > > >> > > > >> > By what right do they have to use tax money for that purpose. > > >> > > > >> > What is > > >> > > > >> > wrong with people in allowing this to go on? Why doesn't the > > >> > > > >> > government use tax payer money to bring mortgages up to date > > >> > > > >> > and order > > >> > > > >> > banks to refinance at a lower rate. It wouldn't even cost > > >> > > > >> > one > > >> > > > >> > billion to keep families in their homes. Where are the > > >> > > > >> > wealthy, so > > >> > > > >> > called benefactors, Gates and Buffet in all of this? Why > > >> > > > >> > shouldn't > > >> > > > >> > banks be allowed to fall just like others? It seems they, > > >> > > > >> > the upper > > >> > > > >> > echelon of society, still live in their own lofty worlds > > >> > > > >> > without a > > >> > > > >> > care for humanity. What is wrong with them? I predict a > > >> > > > >> > national > > >> > > > >> > breakdown in civility, a Ya Basta stance issued by the people. > > >> > > > >> > Rioting and looting and arch's political > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
