E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Athena Jones
President Barack Obama called on both parties Wednesday to work together "to restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s," as he laid out his own vision for how to tackle the nation's long-term fiscal challenges.
During a roughly 50-minute speech at George Washington University, Obama offered what he termed a "balanced approach" to getting the deficit under control by keeping domestic spending low, cutting defense spending, reducing excess health care spending, and reforming the tax code. The president's plan would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over "12 years or less."
"Any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget," Obama said. "A serious plan doesn't require us to balance our budget overnight - in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we need a phased-in approach - but it does require tough decisions and support from our leaders in both parties now."
Total outstanding US debt stands at about $14.2 trillion, according to the Treasury Department, while the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit for FY2011 alone will reach some $1.5 trillion.
While the president has frequently sprinkled his speeches with references to the need to reduce America's growing deficit -- often mentioning that it's one he inherited when he took office -- he has rarely devoted this much time at one event to laying out the steps he is willing to take.
The fight over how to bring the deficit under control is likely to play out during the battles over the FY2012 budget and raising the nation's debt limit. Administration officials are hoping today's speech will help show deficit-minded voters the president is serious about putting the nation on a firmer fiscal footing, while continuing to invest in areas like education, infrastructure and research and development that will help accelerate economic growth, create jobs and help the country compete on the global stage.
"We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt," the president said. "And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future."
* Proposals and reaction
Obama's proposal builds off of the deficit reduction measures included in his 2012 budget and borrows from the recommendations of the fiscal commission he created. The plan would cut non-security discretionary spending by $770 billion by 2023, reduce defense spending by $400 billion, reduce health care spending by $480 billion over that period and an additional $1 trillion over the subsequent decade, lower Medicaid spending by at least $100 billion and Medicare spending by at least $200 billion over 10 years. Obama also wants to see $360 billion in spending reductions for mandatory programs like agricultural subsidies, federal pension insurance and anti-fraud measures by 2023.
He has proposed a "debt failsafe" that he said would hold him -- and Washington -- accountable for failing to reach the goals he is setting. The plan would include a trigger that would require across-the-board spending reductions if, by 2014, the national debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy.
The president said little on Social Security, which he does not believe is in crisis, arguing only that there should be a bipartisan effort to strengthen the costly entitlement program.
The speech was short on specifics on how to achieve the proposed cuts -- in fact one senior administration official conceded on a conference call before the speech that the White House was "putting forward a framework and we're not trying to lock down every detail."
Still, the president made a point of drawing a distinction between his approach and the one proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican whose plan for cutting $4.4 trillion from the deficit the White House believes favors the wealthy at the expense of seniors, the disabled and the poor.
Obama said Ryan's plan had been championed by House Republicans and "embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates" -- a notable reference to the upcoming 2012 campaign -- and said the congressman deserved credit for putting one forward. But he argued the plan's cuts to clean energy, education and transportation and the changes it would make to Medicare and Medicaid would result in a "fundamentally different" nation than the one Americans have known throughout most of the country's history.
"This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," the president said of the Republican budget. "I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it."
The president has also proposed allowing the Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy -- couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making $200,000 -- to expire -- a move Republicans have already said they oppose. The president tried to end those tax breaks last year to fulfill a promise he made during the presidential campaign, but was stymied. In today's speech, he said he would "refuse" to renew those cuts again.
Obama and Vice President Biden briefed a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the plan this morning, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Representatives Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The president has asked Boehner, Reid, Pelosi and McConnell to each designate four members of their caucuses to participate in negotiations on a legislative framework for deficit reduction. The discussions would be led by Biden and would begin early next month.
As part of their pre-buttal to Obama's speech, the Republican National Committee released a video of the president underperforming at various sports from basketball to bowling to golf, while calling for him to engage in an "adult conversation."
Other responses to Obama's proposals were more serious, with Boehner releasing a statement after the speech in support of Ryan's proposals and sounding a familiar GOP refrain against tax increases.
“To reduce the economic uncertainty hanging over American job creators we must demonstrate that we’re willing to take action.” Boehner’s release said in part.” And any plan that starts with job-destroying tax hikes is a non-starter. We need to grow our economy – not our government – by creating a better environment for private sector job growth. That’s why Republicans are fighting for meaningful spending cuts and fighting against any tax increases on American small businesses.”
Leave a Comment:
Stop Giving Corporate Welfare To Corporate Tax Dodgers, Stop Subsidies/Taxpayer Dollars for Oil & Gas & Other COrporations & Stop The Bush Tax Cuts, The Budget Is Fixed, it's not Complicated.
Roadmap to Immediately Fix Our Deficit
12 Tax-Dodging Corporations Spent $1 Billion To Influence Washington Over The Last Decade
As ThinkProgress has been reporting, while Main Street Americans are having their services gutted and public investment is being slashed, some of the country’s most profitable corporations are getting away with paying little to nothing in taxes.
A new report by Public Campaign examines how these major corporations have influenced Congress to craft a tax code that lets them get away with making so much money and paying so little taxes in return.
In its report, “The Artful Dodgers,” Public Campaign juxtaposes the limited tax liability of dozen major corporations with the companies’ campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, which amount to more than a billion dollars over the last decade:
EXXON MOBIL:
The oil giant that was the world’s most profitable corporation in 2008 has spent $5.7 million in campaign contributions over the last ten years and $138 million in lobbying expenditures.
Its federal corporate income tax liabilities for 2009?
Absolutely nothing.
Not only did it pay nothing,
but it also received a tax rebate the same year of $156 million.
CHEVRON:
Chevron spent $4.4 million in campaign contributions and $91 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade.
It received a tax refund of $19 million in 2009
while making $10 billion in profits and
$324 million in government contracts in 2008.
CONOCOPHILLIPS:
The Texas-based gasoline giant spent $2.5 million in campaign contributions and $63 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade.
It received “$451 million through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction,” a “special tax break,” between 2007 and 2009,
despite $16 billion in profits over the same period of time.
VALERO ENERGY:
Valero spent $4.1 million in campaign contributions and $4.8 million in lobbying expenditures from 2001 to 2010.
It received a $157 million tax rebate in 2009 despite $68 billion in sales during the same year.
It received “$134 million through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction” over the last three years.
BANK OF AMERICA:
Bank of America employees contributed $11 million to federal political campaigns from 2001 to 2010 and spent $24 million lobbying over the same period of time.
It made $4.4 billion in profits in 2010
while receiving a tax refund of $1.9 billion.
CITIGROUP:
Citigroup employees contributed $15 million to federal political campaigns from 2001 to 2010 and spent $62 million lobbying over the same period of time.
It made $4 billion in profits in 2010
while paying absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes.
It also received a $1.9 billion tax refund.
GOLDMAN SACHS:
The mega-bank Goldman Sachs, which is often called “Government Sachs” in insider circles because of its clout over Washington,
spent $22 million in campaign contributions and
$21 million in lobbying over the last decade.
It paid an ultra-low tax rate of 1.1 percent in 2008,
while also receiving $800 billion in government loans to help weather the financial crisis.
BOEING:
The aviation and defense contractor giant gave $10 million in contributions and $115 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade.
It “Paid a Grand Total of Nothing in Federal Corporate Income Taxes in 2010 and
“Received a $124 million Tax Refund.”
FEDEX:
FedEx spent $8.7 million in campaign contributions and $71 million in lobbying expenditures from 2001 to 2010.
It paid a .0005 percent effective tax rate recently,
actually spending 42 times as much on lobbying Congress as it did paying taxes.
To do this it utilizes 21 tax havens.
CARNIVAL:
The cruise line paid $1.7 million in campaign contributions and $1.6 million in lobbying over the past ten years.
Despite the relatively low amount of money it spent influencing Washington, it has gotten away with a “Super-Low Tax Rate.”
Over the past five years, its Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate has been an effective 1.1 percent.
VERIZON:
Verizon spent $12 million in campaign contributions and $131 million in lobbying expenditures over the past decade.
It “Paid Absolutely Nothing in Federal Corporate Income Taxes over the past two years
and $488 million in government contracts in 2008; in 2010,
it made $12 billion in profits.
GENERAL ELECTRIC:
General Electric spent $13 million in campaign contributions and $205 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade
while “Netting a Tax Refund of $4.1 Billion” over the past five years.
It made $26 billion in profits over the same time period.
The amount of money that taxpayers are losing from the tax dodging by these major corporations is enormous.
For example, if five of the nation’s biggest banks paid their taxes at the full rate,
we could “Re-hire Every Single one of the 132,000 Teachers Laid Off during the Recession — twice
June, your post is frightening in it's reality!
All of those corporations are 'sacred cows'......the loopholes that they enjoy will never change, no matter how much they continue to rob the American People.
I especially like the analogy about re-hiring the teachers.....(oops), maybe they are union and you gotta' bust their ability to organize!
That's nice June. You must be sadly disappointed in Obama for proposing not one of these items you list.
The problem I have with treating corporations like tax paying citizens, is that they expect to have the same rights as a citizen. If corporations were not taxed like citizens, then there would be less incentive for them to be heavily involved in the political process.
What a waste of time for Obama’s speech. “I’m gonna do something”, that all Obama said. Nothing of anything that would be considered a plan. Just campaign rhetoric, platitudes, and hand waving. Anyone that thought this speech would be a “Defining moment” for Obama must feel sadly mistaken. You expect substance and direction from your leaders, what you get is fluff and idle rhetoric from Obama.
As I said in a post a few days ago, Obama’s economic “plan” is to have long term goals for deficit reduction, but no details to describe any kind of a plan or path to actually achieving those goals. In other words Obama has punted yet again. He has “12 year plan”, check that, a “goal”, to reduce the budget, his initial budget, by $4 trillion dollars. That doesn’t even come close to Ryan’s PLAN (to you Liberals, that’s a thing that if implemented, it makes it happen) of $5 trillion in spending reductions in 10 years.
Obama wants to “End the Bush taxes for the rich”. Didn’t he have an opportunity to do so not more than four months ago? He punted on that one too. Raising those taxes will bring in an additional $70 billion a year, that doesn’t even begin to put a dent in the Obama Budget Deficits.
Social Security – Obama doesn’t believe the program is in “crisis”. I guess sticking your head in the sand (or somewhere else) is the Standard Operating Procedure for Obama. He just can’t understand that every dime of federal tax income goes to pay for the entitlements, and leaves nothing to discretionary spending. To Obama, that doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Obama used his standard “Blame Bush” line again, this time talking about projected deficits. It’s gotten old. Ancient in fact. Throw in a little class warfare, and you’ve got the Liberals attention by throwing them some red-meat, but it’s useless rhetoric, just more campaigning by Obama.
Obama talks about “Coming together”. He also talks about rainbows, unicorns, and fairy dust. And Obama says everyone should be happy too!
Obama cited that “China, South Korea, and Brazil as examples of nations that are investing in the future and said the United States is not.” That is true as China is investing in US bonds while Brazil is taking $2 billion of US taxpayers money to explore for oil off of their coast. America on the other hand is deeply entrenched in class-warfare and is in the process of a massive wealth transfer from people that produce to the people that don’t produce.
Obama says “We will make tough cuts necessary to make these savings”, he said, adding that he will “Invest in new roads, education, job training and clean energy.” And he says he’ll “Cut defense”. Where? How much? Again, nothing. Standard lines for Obama, nothing new, nothing changes, and of course with zero details. Just another punt by Obama. It’s almost like he’s campaigning.
Same old thing with Obama, no leadership, no accountability, no direction, no ownership. Just another pathetic display by Obama today.
JoAnna says "no leadership".
That's funny. What would you know about leadership?
Do you ever - you know - laugh or anything? You are so so so so boring and miserable.
Gosh Pat, but are you not the one who has admitted to hating half of the population, i.e. all the republicans?
Yeah, I'm sure you are a real delight to be around.
Time to change your game JoAnna. Just skimming the snippet on the FR main page told me that the post was yours. Your "fluff and idle rhetoric" is getting too easy to spot.
Laughed all the way through the Obama speech Pat. The man is a riot at doing stand-up. So, when's he going to give his speech on his plan for reducing the deficit/debt, because that speech wasn't it.
And was the speech a defining moment for Obama Pat? It seemed more like an undefined moment for him, because people come away from Obama's speeches lately asking themselves "What the hell is he talking about?"
Please. Obama set no direction, gave no specifics, didn't even talk about his very own Debt Commissions report. The man is simply vapor! There is no substance at all to him. Does anyone in his party of any idea what he talked about and what they should support? He's really hanging his party out to dry with his lack of substance on every issue.
JoAnna - Have you always despised the Social Security and Medicare programs? Do you intend to avail yourself of them or by any chance are you already on them? I would be interested in knowing where you're coming from because these programs have been around a long time and they have a proven track record of keeping seniors out of poverty, keeping them healthier and maintaing an independent life. So why would you be advocated their demise? Oh and don't tell me you want to strengthen these programs because then I'll know you're full of it. Tax cutting by the Republicans and two wars not paid for are the reasons these programs are in peril now. So please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
JS1- you were expecting anything else from Zelig?
Then, the "professional journalists" on this site go as far as to criticize it as being "short on specifics", which is like saying a goldfish is short on legs. I also love the reference to his 2012 budget reducing the debt by $4 trillion- while increasing it by $13 trillion. That is like saying that the people who robbed the bank saved the bank $40,000- because they only took $130,000.
Now that Boehner has proved he can best Obama, there is actual comic value to watching him struggle not to define himself, while the media contorts itself in order to portray him as the greatest thing since tuna in a can.
He has professed his belief that it is better to be president of China, where no criticism is allowed.
Think we can get them to take him?
Not at all. They are great programs and have provided great benefits. But unless reformed, they will stop producing the results that they have.
So are you part of the Don't Worry, Be Happy crowd like Obama is laurie? You seem to think by some miracle these floundering programs that are bankrupting the country will magically fund themselves. That certainly explains your love for Obama, he thinks the same way, and that makes you both full of it.
JoAnna - I guess you didn't read all the way through my post otherwise you would have gotten to the part where I said two tax cuts and two wars are the reason these programs are in the kind of trouble they are in now. I'm not saying that minor revisions wouldn't strengthen them but not the total rewrites that you advocate. That is only code for destroy these programs. You and I both know it. So try a different approach. We all see throught he one you're using now. It's not convincing us you want these programs to remain as they were intended.
I thought SS money was in a lock box?
laurie - War expenditures are about $163 billion a year. Not counting Obama's latest war in Libya.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm
So even without the wars, those potential savings don't even reduce the deficit by 10%.
Entitlement programs like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are costing about $2 trillion dollars a year and expanding rabidly as the Baby Boomers access those programs. There is the problem, and if not dealt with, it will bankrupt the country.
You really need to start ignoring the rhetoric your getting about what the wars cost and crunch a number or two to see that you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
I missed the Obama speech because I have a business(s) to run, but I tivo'ed it to watch later. As Feisty says, I need to pop the popcorn, mix a Manhattan and have a good laugh. It sounds as if he debasted the Ryan plan while offering nothing of his own.
Get ready for that $6gas of gas, and the inflated cost of feeding the family, more taxes, and additional spending.
The Great Spender says, we need more taxes to support the spending that my party has created since '06! Oh, and it was Bushies fault, the Republicans won't offer constructive programs to consider, while I locked them out of health care, and gosh folks, re-elect me cause I need the job!
Sounds like a real joke for the taxpayers. Raise taxes, why not reduce spending Obie/Harry and the deposed Nancy?
Keep those criminal aliens supported for the Democratic vote. Where's my mortgage payment Obama, or my car?
HAHAHAHAH, HEHEHEH,HA.
The Great Spender was Ronnie RayGun who
tripled the national debt -- still a record.
Same old tax increases, but now called "Spending reductions in tax code."
Same old class warfare, but now new envy-inducing rhetoric ....not just "millionaires," but "millionaires and billionaires"...
There are but 412 "billionaires" in the US, so why dont you just take all their money, that's 412 billion? Oh wait, they may leave the country...or hire tax lawyers to hide the assests, or not make any income, but buy more mansions...
The country is going bankrupt, but Obama won't give an inch...the Party of Government continues the spending Party...the private sector is doomed
"We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt"
-President Barack Obama-
He sounds like a Tea Partier, doesn't he?
A recent convert...but, progress is progress.
Mixed Bag:
"We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt"
-President Barack Obama-
He sounds like a Tea Partier, doesn't he?
=============
One problem MB, the Tea Partier means it. Obama doesn't.
The Teabaggers are just using debt reduction as their hammer
to transfer wealth from the
middle class to billionaires.
It is irritating to hear leftists complain about huge corporations spending money lobbying in Washington.
Liberal policies of Nanny State stringent regulation, high taxes and bureaucracy ruined the ability of new start ups to compete with huge corporations in the oil and gas industry, the big banks, etc. Contrary to what they say, liberals love big corporations, since they help them to squelch competition.
Liberal policies are also the reason every company must spend huge amounts of money lobbying in Washington , due to leftist policies of regulation and intrusion into the private sector.
Bob - Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid or not the "Nanny" state. If you recall properly, Americans pay into these programs and then collect an annuity. It works just like an insurance policy would and it guarantees that when Americans get old and sick they will have a safety net. Also, Bob.....corporations are not the end all and the be all of "all" existence in this country. They are a factor but there are others. We should not be bowing at the alter of corporations.
First thoughts on obamas plan...
While lacking few specifics as well as a need for him to reread Carnigeis "How to win friends and influence people"
My initial positive takes and caveats are...
Good plan to re-evaluate actions taken in 2014 to see if the debt reduction plan is on track. Neutral to negative on the creation of an IPAB (independent panel to analyze the budget goals. If temp fine, permanent not so fine. Obviously I have little faith in the effectiveness of a bureacracy.
Obama late in addressing our debt, but he does now admit that spending is and will remain out of control. if nothing is done
Leaves SS off the deficit table, but recognizes its flaws still needs to be addressed.
Obama wants to have a unified (bipartisan) approach to addressing issues.
Income tax code reform (both individual and business) to eliminate/minimize the deductions the wealthy and businesses can take. really deductions should be made equally across the board for individuals and for business to promote growth.
Pointed out and minimized the radical groups (both L& R) who are sure to proclaim "NO, NO WAY, UNACCEPTABLE". lol what FR reader hasn't heard such rants from the left hear on FR with the occasional right rants as well.
Negative takes with caveats...
Deamonizing the right and not accepting the role that democrats also played in the last 10 years. Obama, read carnegies book.
Medicaid, not functionally addressed other than to insist that proposed $500 billion in cuts can be made up by cleaning up waste ans fraud. Almost implied that the government should be looking at medical cost control. Unless one negotiates with the healthcare provider to cap wages and expenses. cost controls will go nowhere unless the government embraces a socialized medical plan for seniors.
Education, medical and EPA funding to increase or not be cut. All three need to be reviewed for effectiveness and ways to reduce costs. A " mastery of the fundamentals" in k education along with teaching goal setting and teaching our youth to be productive citizens. Encouraging university attendance, OK but make sure they understand the costs involved along with average pay expected. Encouraging trade school also ok as well as community college to minimize expenses. Medical reseach funding? Would prefer the majority of funding to come from private sources to contain costs and fraud. Medical/biological and physics research funding at the graduate level only to the extent as it would apply to the education of the students. Yes, it may be long term, but not long term employment of the grad students. EPA - everyone likes clean air and water, but the public also needs to understand its costs (reduced domestic productivity and jobs) vs benefits (clean air, water and sustainable energy for a growing population).
Neutral take
All discretionary plans should be on the table, as obama said "shared sacrifice". Funding cuts today don't mean funding cuts forever.
Entitlement assistance to the poor and destitute, cut it or develop a plan where they can "earn" through community service their stipends based on there ability to perform. IE give them hope and a sense of personal worth to go along with the monetary assistance
Since my "save change" didn't occur, another negative take and caveat is...
Obama wants to eliminate tax cuts on the wealthy. Why not see what the elimination of the deductables do first or impliment a higher bracket for the billionaires.
Regardless, I dare say many taxpayers (at any income level) thinks that the government knows how to effectively and wisely spends $$$. The Gates fouindation comes to mind. As a private foundation Melissa and bill Gates efforts produce amazing results. If government funded I doubt the government could be a tenth as effective.
Obama's plan is fair,logical and honest, which is why the Republicans can't stand it
Wait not one Republican could even sit through the speech. Ya think?
Even old Joe Biden fell asleep...evidently even democrats could not sit through the speech.
I was disappointed in the Presidents speech but I planned my day around watching live so I could get my own feeling on it. We don't ask much of you Mr. Vice-President but I think you could have stayed awake. I did.
Joanna and Spanky sittin' in a tree
B-I-TCH-I-N-G
First comes the HATE
Later comes OBAMA bashing
Then they come apushin' lies and GOP opponent trashing.
SEE WE CAN ALL BE CHILDISH
The statements about "taking all the billionaires' money" is getting so old. Don't you see how ridiculous it is to use the fact that "all the billionaires' wealth" is not enough to fix the economy as an excuse to require nothing of them? If you were in debt for $100,000 and someone offered you $20,000, would you turn it down because it wasn't enough to pay off your debt? How absurd!
The Ryan plan is now dead. Time for the Republicans-Tea Baggers to work with the President.
Then how about Bowles-Simpson or something close Job. I was really hoping the President would embrace a good part of this. And Job the Bowles-Simpson plan would affect me personally but I think that the time has come to pull together.
Watch out for the Obama terminology on the campaign trail: 1. improve infrastructure= payoff to unions
2. invest in the future = SPEND/raise taxes
3. invest in education = pour MORE money into poorest neighborhoods only.
4. Green energy = GE gets rich & pays NO taxes.
5. alternative fuels = GAS prices soar
All false equivalents
Don't forget -
Win the Future (WTF) = Bend Over Here it Comes Again (BOHICA)
Its kinda amusing to read the OBAMA Bashing blogs from the same people who KEPT THEIR MOUTH AND MINDS SHUT, WHEN BUSH WAS RACKING UP THE BIGGEST DEFICIT IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
where were you guys then and where was the tea party then? and FYI, I am a registered independent.
the current GOP doesn't deserve to get re-elected as they thrive on lies and deceit. Its a shame that the public buys into their lies without checking out the facts.
And the left has no backbone. THey need to stand up on what they believe in.
GOOD LORD!!
Thank you President Obama! You are a true leader!!
RYAN, YOU ARE A FOOL!!!!!!!!!! How can you cut and think you can save money. You need to put money in the bank if you are going to spend. This wouldn't even work is if you cut everything and spend nothing. You have to have money coming in. WE ARE TOO POOR ALREADY, THE RICH CAN GIVE UP ONE HOUSE OR ONE EXTRA CAR OR ONE YACHT. MAYBE IF THEY GAVE UP 5 STAR RESTAURANTS WE CAN STOP EATING BEANS AND HOTDOGS, AND FOR THE ELDERLY DOG AND CAT FOOD. THINK I AM BEING OVER DRAMATIC THAT GOES TO SHOW YOU DON'T A CLUE AS TO HOW WE LIVE.
I am a conservative and it pains me to say this, but just for one tax year, I think they should give the tax increases the liberals want, just to shut them up once and for all. The "rich as liberal say" already pay 40% of the taxes in this country, they also own the businesses that hire. So how much do you want to raise their taxes to support your "Utopian" society? Where the rich support everyone else from cradle to the grave. Most average Americans do not pay that much tax, due to their annual income level, and the poor pay nothing at all. So how much more do you think you can bleed out of the top 2% income earners? And how much can you take before they can no longer afford to own a business, hire workers, buy new equipment to modernize and remain efficient? And let the Democrats have a field day, coming up with as many programs and entitlements they can, all paid for by this new found wealth, taxing the rich. And then when this "utopia" the Democrats have been promising you all these years drives this Nation into bankruptcy, maybe then you will finally realize, liberalism is an unsustainable lie.
Memo to Americans: President Obama is not scared of Ryan as predicted by some. The TEA party has shown their colors and the Republican party will feel their wrath first. The taxes paid by the general public is not fair across the board. The middle class footed the bill for the bailouts while the top 2% took it to the bank. President Obama hold your ground! These Republican and TEA party members are hell bent to derail your programs. Taxes on the richest 2% should be increased. Corporations should be taxed on their gross income instead of their net income and all corporate subsidies cancelled or reduced to effect a wider spreading of the tax burden. As it stands now President Obama must resist any GOP tactic or attack towards the entitlements the retired have earned. It was Congress through the past thirty to forty years who borrowed monies from Social Security and left IOU's in place. I agree with President Obama! Anyone making over $250,000.00 should pay more taxes! The lower and middle class have enough pressures on them to have to support the richest 2%. All companies should be taxed on Gross Income generated world-wide and the mega- rich 2% should be taxed on gross earning if in excess of $1,000,000.00.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about (This during the recession):
The total compensation in 2007 for the 9 banks that received the first batch of government aid through TARP.
1. Ken D Lewis - Bank of America - 24.8 Million
2. Gary Crittenden - CUITIGROUP - 19.4 million
3. Lloyd C. Blankfein - Goldman Sachs - 70.3 million
4. James Dimon - Chase Bank - 27.8 million
5. Gregory J Fleming - Merrill Lynch - 27.4 million
6. Colm Kelleher - Morgan Stanley - 21.0 million
7. Thomas A. Renyi - New york Mellon Bank - 22.2 million
8. State Street Corp Bank - Ronald E Logue - 28.3 million
9. Richard M. Kovecevich - Wells Fargo Bank - 22.9 Million
Top TWELVE Compensation 2010
1. Philippe P. Dauman - Viacom - 84.5 million
2. Ray R.Irani - Oxydental Petroleum - 76.1 Million
3. Lawrence J. Ellison - Oracle - 70.1 Million
4. Michael D. White - DIRECTTV - 32.9
5. John F. Lundgren - Stanley/Black & Decker - 32.6 Million
6. Brian L Roberts - COMCAST - 28.2 Million
7. Robert A. Iger - Walt Disney - 28.0 Million
8. Allen Mulally - Ford - 26.5 Million
9. Samuel J Palmisano - IBM - 25.2 Million
10. David Farr - Emerson Electric - 22.9 Million
11. Howard Schultz - Starbucks - 21.7 million
12. William Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - 21.6 million
(source CNN)
The middle class bailed out the banking and auto industries as well as Wall Street.
Good for them Rudy! Like many leaders, they do work hard for their dollars. Oh, do you believe CEOs sit in their offices and play with their toys?
Shouldn't everyone aspire to be on top? We all have opportunities.
And Rudy, if you made what Ken made during his time with B of A, you would want to hire the best to make certain you kept as much as possible. I happen to know Ken from my days in Charlotte, when B of A was little NCNB. Ken grew that bank into a power-player, acquiring B of A.
Unfortunately, Obama, " the great financial guy" forced him into taking ObamaMoney the bank didn't want. Then obie sold him out.
I would be considered in the middle class and I wouldn't mind paying taxes on two conditions: 1) That the extra revenue generated goes directly towards the debt. 2) That everyone in the country contributes. If you make 5 million, 500000, 50000, 5000, 500, 50 dollars a year, you are paying something. If you make $50/year, you are paying $1 or whatever. Just as long as everyone pays. Not just one group.
But who's going to pay for Bush's wars.
Teabagger Solution --
We can solve our
fiscal problems by giving
another tax cut to billionaires. That way
the billionaries can afford their
2nd or 3rd mansion and a bigger yacht.
Then the billionares will
hire us on as gardeners and maids
and all of America will be happy.
"Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined." --Michael Moore, speaking in Wisconsin, 5 March 2011
People, listen, you have to know what's going on, and somebody HAS TO STEP UP AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. This means YOU ---- IF YOU KNOW HOW TO SOLVE IT.
First, the problem is that in (FY) 2009 we brought in 2.7 trillion in taxes, but spent 3.1 trillion on the federal budget ---- leaving a deficit of 407 billion, which was added onto the national debt, having it climb to 12.9 trillion dollars for 2009. Then, in 2010 we brought in 2.4 trillion in taxes, but spent 3.6 trillion on the federal budget ---- leaving a deficit of 1.2 trillion , which made the national debt climb to 14.1 trillion dollars for 2010. This year, 2011, we will make 2.1 trillion in taxes, but spend 3.8 trillion on the federal budget ---- leaving a deficit of 1.7 trillion, which will make the national debt climb to well over 15 trillion dollars at the end of this (FY) year (September 30, 2011). Next year, 2012, we will make around 2 trillion in taxes, but the budget proposal is to spend 3.7 trillion ---- THIS IS NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
Also, this is how the yearly federal budget works ---- We should only spend on it what we make in taxes. Since we spend more than that, we borrow the more money that we "need" from all the other countries that we can, which we have to pay back with interest. Then we spend even more money than that, in which we print (create) money, which is called quantitative easing. From November 2008 to June 2010, 1.75 trillion was printed (QE1). From November 2010 to June 2011, 900 billion will have been printed (QE2). There is already talk of printing more after this (QE3). This printing of extra money causes inflation, because the more of something there is, the less it's worth.
Also, this is what the biggest parts of our yearly federal budget are ---- For 2010, the biggest parts (percentages) of the federal budget spending were: Social Security (19.63%), Department of Defense (18.74%), Unemployment/Welfare (16.13%), Medicare (12.79%), and Medicaid (8.19%) ---- in that order, the top 5, all combining for a total of 75.48% of the entire yearly federal budget of last year, 2010.
So, to FIX the problem, we need some experts. Successful stock brokers with 30 years experience or more investing with the same clients, successful business CEOs with 30 years experience or more in the same company, or people who hold a Ph.D. in economics ---- all people like this, or you who are reading this, and know how to fix this problem, need to go to Washington and present your ideas to this current administration that is currently NOT DOING IT'S JOB.
Listen, brother, I am asking you this from the bottom of my heart. If you know how to fix this economy and budget problem we have, GO TO WASHINGTON AND DO IT.