Obama's Tax-and-Spend Budget Plan Is a Non-Starter in Congress

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Lower tax rate for wealthy and they pay more taxes. Your comprehension of what you read is ___0___ No wonder you are a liberal....
__
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

Bill Hedges of MO 2:11AM April 18, 2011

Until you learn to copy & paste links, you're out of luck anyhow...
Since you did not disprove me, I am right. Isn't that your earlier conclusion ? You have some silly ideas...

Bill Hedges of MO 1:18AM April 18, 2011

hey bill h.,old boy,before you continue your crusade on how burdened the upper income people are by their tax rates.you might want to checkout an a.p. story on 4/18/2011 by stephen ohlemacher titled"the super rich,how their tax rate has dropped dramatically"
as he points out,these people receive more lucrative tax breaks than the ordinary tax payer.
also checkout. http/www.fair economy.org

bruce b of NV 11:49PM April 17, 2011

1. “the budget balanced at the end Of the Clinton presidency”
Noticed you did not say __surplus__ Very wise.
Balanced budget, not during Clinton years:
“The Myth of the Clinton Surplus ”
“Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.”
“When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).”
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
2. “Reason: We NEVER PAID for the two wars we have been in since GWBush” & “We NEVER PAID for the tax cuts during the GWBush years”
“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
John F. Kennedy
Bush was on his way to paying for the wars Democrats in Congress supported, UNTILL CLINTON'S RECESSION KICKED IN:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, lawyer barry, and Acorn gave us a recession with bad home loan scheme. Bush gave warnings that went unheeded by Congress.
3. “Taxes were cut starting in the 1980's, and the middle class started to lose ground”
Proved that wrong when I quoted JFK. Tax cuts go further back than Ronald. Just check my links. BLOWS YOUR TAX CUTS CAUSED HARM TO MIDDLE CLASS THEORY.
4. “only tax increase was amusingly done by GWs father ”
Reagan increased tax. For ever $1.00 tax reduction, he increased 50 cents. Clinton increased taxes, but reduced under Newt control. Remember CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.
“Which republican president balanced a budget?”

Bill Hedges of MO 12:58AM April 16, 2011

5. “Social Security pays for itself - still, so minor weaks are all that's needed there. ”
WRONG:
“The Myth of the Clinton Surplus ”
“Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.”
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bill Hedges of MO 12:55AM April 16, 2011

Anybody who thinks we can balance the budget AND continue to provide the basic services the American people have come to expect without raising taxes is obviously deficient at basic arithmetic.
But, if we're going to cut programs, cut them dead and cut them now. If it's not defense, get rid of it. This budget, this year. We don't need it, none of it. Highways? The states were doing just fine back in the 30s. Commerce? We're in favor of it. Have fun. Product and food safety? Caveat emptor. Federal retirement programs, including military and VA? Can't afford them, got to go. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? No more freeloaders, malingerers, and skivers. Cut 'em off. Now. Today. Can't afford to keep them going. None of this grandfathering crap. Doesn't matter who's on them or how many. Don't cut taxes. We've got to eliminate the national debt, first.
Oh, you can't afford to stay alive now? You should have planned better, shouldn't you?

Nick of SC 11:41PM April 15, 2011

bruce writes :
“if your to lazy to go to the site,s i provide,that that proves you only want articles that support your point of view.typical of the necons,who are out to futher destrory the economy.”
_____
Did’t I ???
“bruce_ Your "case closed!" is prmature Part 2..”.
You said Sarah did not care about victims and the families in shooting in AZ. You said Clinton left a surplus I proved that wrong.
You discount Heritage when barry uses Heritage. you have not disproved heritage material I use. You get cocky when you have no reason.
"case closed!" , as you say. I provided proof. DISPROVE WITH EVIDECE AND LINKS. Look at my links and learn how to provide links. Am I that much smarter than you ???
You can't do it right and I am getting bored with you. I'm not doing your work for you. copy address is so easy. GEE...
[report comment]
Bill Hedges of MO @ Apr 15, 2011 02:52:53 AM
bruce...
Does it prove increasing taxes on rich increase government revenue. I put in
(business insider.com4/8/2011 ) and got nothing.
___
This article has no numbers
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39154568/Bashing_Bush_and_Boehner_Won_t_Work_Obamanomics_Is_the_Real_Problem
_____
Here is my proof it doesn't:
"Tax cuts for the wealthy increase government revenue."
http://www.taxcutsincreaserevenue.com/
_____
“The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
_____
“Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts”
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 11:41PM April 15, 2011

if your to lazy to go to the site,s i provide,that that proves you only want articles that support your point of view.typical of the necons,who are out to futher destrory the economy.

bruce b of NV 10:03PM April 15, 2011

is to reform the entire tax code and implement a flat tax, so that everyone has skin in the game, EVERYONE.
Everyone keeps talking about the "Rich” and the "Middle class", how about we stop the labels and start talking numbers. That way everyone will know who is being talked about. Are the "rich" $100k a year or is it 250k? Is the Middle class 50k to 100k or is it 20k - 100k?
And why does the "poor" pay no taxes but can still get a tax refund? How do you refund something that wasn't paid?
My solution without the class warfare is, 15% flat tax across the board and a Federal sales tax of 5% and a tariff on all goods imported into the US. The tariff should be equal to the percentage difference in the standard of living of the exporter and the US. This will bring jobs or keep jobs in America.
Final step in the domestic policies is to change the unemployment benefits, this entitlement last for 6 months, period. There are thousands of people across the county hoping and praying that they continue to extent these benefits just so they don't have to go get a job, it's time for that to end.
In foreign affairs it’s time to bring our men and women home, from Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. But before the move we need to tell the world that we will not start any war, but we will defend ourselves with the all the resources available to the United States, including nuclear.
Don’t mess with the US, we are finished with being “nice”, you mess with us and we wipe you azz out, done.

Larry of CA 10:16AM April 15, 2011

I saw the interview too - Stockman - FROM THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION - clearly stated that the only real way to correct the budget & debt was to return to prior tax levels. His point was - the budget balanced at the end f the Clinton presidency. What has changed?
Reason: We NEVER PAID for the two wars we have been in since GWBush - TRILLIONS over the 10 or so years. In the past - during and after wars the public was taxed more heavily and bonds were sold during WWII.
Reason: We NEVER PAID for the tax cuts during the GWBush years, and the economy tanked, lost millions of jobs and all that tax money in the pockets of the wealthy definitely did NOT stimulate growth. That too now adds up to TRILLIONS.
Taxes after WWII were almost double what they are now. Still the economy grew, and the middle class prospered.
Taxes after Vietnam were much higher, and corporations were paying 3 TIMES AS MUCH as they are now.
Taxes were cut starting in the 1980's, and the middle class started to lose ground. The only tax increase was amusingly done by GWs father - and THAT really did cause us to be able to balance the budget.
As many say - the only huge spending problem we have the military spending - a HALF TRILLION MORE THAN DURING THE CLINTON years. $500 billion more - more than doubled in 10 years.
Social Security pays for itself - still, so minor weaks are all that's needed there.
Medicare - continue to audit, and locate costs savings, but the program in general is good.
No need to gut either of them. Neither are paid for by taxes. Shame on anyone who proposes that they be gutted. I know too many elderly people who would be living in cardboard boxes without both programs. These proposals are the kind made by young people who have no relationship with old age....
We spend trillions on military contractors and weapons, 56% of the taxes we pay. We show part of the debt which is really not debt - it is funds owed by one goverment agency to another...about $3 trillion of it. It's like saying that what you borrowed from your sister is reported on your credit report. Nonsense.
It is not "tax and spend" - Mr Roff (you are so predictable - slogans and talking points with no substance)
We cannot keep cutting income, adding huge tax breaks to corporations and then say everyone else has to cut.
This is not "tax & spend" - it is PAY YOUR BILLS WHEN THEY ARE INCURRED.
What Ryan and Roff support is more like the MOST GIGANTIC TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS TO THE SUPER-WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS.
The President has it right. His way is the only way the budget will ever balance or the debt be paid with the Middle Class remaining intact.