cawacko
Well-known member
Where would the budget stand then without those two wars comparable to previous budgets/deficits?
Obamas budget impossible without HUGE middle class tax increases
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
Where would the budget stand then without those two wars comparable to previous budgets/deficits?
Where would the deficit stand? I don't know, but it wouldn't look anything like that chart Dano posted.
When Obama announced that he was no longer going to abide the fiction of off-budget items not counting (which, despite the hyperbole of his press secretary really matters) and report what the deficit actually is, my immediate thought was that he better redo the past ten years or so to prevent this type of dishonesty. It doesn't seem that they've done that. Hence, we have to deal with this dishonesty.
cawacko
Well-known member
It seems they would have an apples to apples comparison ready as they can't be surprised that this how people would respond.
KingCondanomation
New member
Do you mean Bush senior?
Did you look at the numbers Chap? You do realize even if they raised taxes on the rich to 100%, they would still not close the deficit.
I'm not sure the author is a Republican and he is basing his numbers on the more generous 2006 tax returns (the newer ones in a recession are obviously going to be even lower).
the tax on those making over 250k is only going to increase about 5% on any income over the 250… its really not that big of a deal.
KingCondanomation
New member
You are right, it's not that big a tax raise, that's just the point. Even if they raised taxes to 100% on the rich they still would not have enough to close the deficit.
You're smart with money Chap, understand what I am saying, there is no way they can come anywhere close to balancing the budget with that small of a tax raise - even if they do a giant tax raise on those making more than 250K they still have nowhere close to enough.
They have no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class or cut the spending they are doing but they are Democrats and we both know they won't cut much if anything.
Immanuel
Junior Member
No he is not (well, no Rep. Conyers is not) speaking of simply updating technologies and processes within the industry. As it stands now, H.R. 676 specifically says that it will be ILLEGAL for private insurance companies to offer plans covering any of the same coverages as this plan offers.
It will completely wipe out the health insurance industry. Now, I am not saying that the industry doesn't deserve it, but wiping out all competition is not a good thing. I wonder how many jobs this will cost and how many of the office staff at all the insurance companies can build roads.
Immie
But H.R. 676 isn't going to happen and I haven't seen any indication whatsoever that Obama supports that bill. In fact, all evidence thus far is to the contrary.
Dano, Obama has no plans to balance the budget. He has already stated that after all this huge deficit he wants to halve it in four years. So, tax increases will be necessary, but it appears as if we'll be paying more than ever in deficit spending "loans".
People complained about 400 Billion dollar deficits before, it is absolutely nothing compared to those we have today, that he plans to halve in four years.
People complained about 400 Billion dollar deficits before, it is absolutely nothing compared to those we have today, that he plans to halve in four years.
Immanuel
Junior Member
Actually, I didn't read far enough into the thread to realize that you guys were talking about Obama's plans rather than the bill that has been presented. I realized it after I posted my comment. I pray to God that you are right and H.R. 676 is dead in the water AND that they do go back to the drawing board to work on this problem.
I don't know the solution, but something will have to be done.
Immie
There are several different alternative plans being floated around of which HR 676 is just one and the most left-wing of them. In my opinion it serves the purpose of staking out the left side of the debate to counterbalance the mainstream Republican position of ending the tax preferred treatment of employer provided plans.
If anything should scare you as a healthcare worker, it would be the latter. The whole purpose of the latter position is that Americans consume too much healthcare and should consume less.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I'm not a healthcare worker? Sorry, if I gave that impression. I'm a private accountant for a small business having nothing to do with the industry. What scares me is the cost of healthcare which is seriously affecting the business I work for. Many people don't have a clue how much their health insurance costs there employers and they don't realize that any part of that that the employer subsidizes is actually additional earnings for them. They don't realize how much their employer picks up of the bill.
My employer picks up roughly $800/month of my health insurance despite the fact that I have tried several times to convince my boss that we simply cannot afford it. He refuses to budge on that issue. But that is $9,600/year additional benefits that I receive. It is not small change.
Immie
cawacko
Well-known member
Well here's the same chart I assume from the OMB and the article is coming from MSNBC showing a $1.75 trillion projected deficit and that could be optimistic. Nowhere in the article does it say they are accounting differently thus the delta in this record deficit.
And how is this ushering in a "new era of responsibility" as Obama claims? I understand he is dealing with problems not of his making but saying these record projected deficits going forward is a new era of responsibility? WTF?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/
I do understand the math and his budget is very disappointing because it makes very little sense. It makes bush's spending look like childs play. I am not going to jump to the conclusion yet that hes planning on going back on his word but if he does he and all the other democrats will be elected out of office very fast.