Obama Spend-o-Rama

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
All I care is: If we are posed with a choice between for example: Going to war without warrent, or going to war with a just cause - it is the judgement that matters. Hillary's emotions get ahead of her and that's not what I want in a leader.

Now as for the people suggesting that the only reason Obama is doing well because of his money, think of it this way..

Spending Money = Spending Money Given. Money Given = small donors that support the campaign.
Hillary having less donors = less support = less money to spend.
Simple as that. Obama has every right to out spend her, even 4 to 1 if he felt like it.

Please read the thread before posting.

I was going to add a reply about capital gains tax-tax rates and income received; but after seeing this gem all I can do is laugh at the common Obamabot supporter and move on.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the best thing to come out of the last debate was the pledge by Obama to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000.

Which means he has really stepped in it when it comes to trying to push new spending.
Taxing the rich will only raise another $40 billion or so which means all of his great ideas are going to require money from some place else or MORE taxes.

I expect come general election he is going to be pinned down over this problem. Will be interesting to see how he answers.

I'm sure he will find plenty of ways to tax those of us making less than $200,000, it just won't be an income tax.

That's for sure. During the same debate, he talked about raising the capital gains tax which would in itself raise taxes on those of us making less than $200,000.

I'd be willing to bet that a reasonable increase in capital gains taxes would have virtually no impact in the effective tax rate on folks making less than $200,000. Sure, many of them have investments, but income from those investments is such a tiny percentage of their overall income that an increase in the capital gains tax won't affect them very much. It's a red herring issue, because nobody really WANTS to argue for tax cuts for the rich...so it's always presented as helping out the little guy.

That may be true but these proposals, and those of the other candidates, cannot be paid for by simply taxing the rich.

To finance the first year of this proposed spending ($300 billion), Congress would need to increase taxes on the top 1% of taxpayers by 57%. Under that scenario, taxpayers with incomes over $365,000 would see a tax hike of at least $40,300 on top of what they currently pay!

That is simply not realistic. So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%.
The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

If we are to take any of these campaign promises seriously, someone needs to start talking about huge cuts elsewhere or admit that taxes and national debt are going to continue going through the roof.

Of course our engagement in Iraq costs us about 10 billion a month (give or take) so considering he plans to end that, there's a savings of about $120 billion a year right there without enacting a single tax. I think no talk about spending or budgetary issues should take place without noting McCain's explicit promise to continue the war, and with it all the insane expenses. Hell, if nothing else Obama's spending would take place inside the US, not be pissed away on bombs.

That bill is completely dishonest and everyone knows it. No president, even if he plans on implementing all of his campaign promises would enact them all in one year. So it's the 'largest spending increase in history' only if Obama were to behave in a way completely different then all previous presidents in history. Shocking.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Of course our engagement in Iraq costs us about 10 billion a month (give or take) so considering he plans to end that, there's a savings of about $120 billion a year right there without enacting a single tax. I think no talk about spending or budgetary issues should take place without noting McCain's explicit promise to continue the war, and with it all the insane expenses. Hell, if nothing else Obama's spending would take place inside the US, not be pissed away on bombs.

That bill is completely dishonest and everyone knows it. No president, even if he plans on implementing all of his campaign promises would enact them all in one year. So it's the 'largest spending increase in history' only if Obama were to behave in a way completely different then all previous presidents in history. Shocking.

The ammendment is, I'm sure, exaggerating the numbers. It's from the Republicans so what would you expect? Still, there is a good deal of truth to the ammendment.

It's also dishonest to say we'd have a savings of $120 Billion a year from the plan to end the war. The war and it's associated costs will not end overnight. If anything, I'd expect the costs to increase for a while as we're attempting to leave. The possible savings would be somewhat dependant on how long it takes to get out and whether or not an early withdrawal would force us to go back. Obama has stated that it could be a possibility.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Speaking of capital gains taxes, does everyone here realize that raising them has consistently led to less capital gains tax revenue? yeah... that's right.

Anyways...

I know that the reduction in capital gains has led to increased revenues but I haven't seen where increasing the cap gains has led to a decrease. I'm not trying to say that it's not true, it would stand to reason that it is but, can you cite a source that it is definately true?

Let's think logically...the increase is proposed for Long Term capital gains tax because short term is taxed at your marginal tax level anyway. So that means it's someone that's held stocks for more than a year and profitable on those stocks. Let's say they raise the rate from 15% to 28%. Would you sell any of your Long Term gains? Hell no, you lock up your account and you go away so you don't have to pay any taxes.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: halik
How about we stop funding 3rd world countries in middle east and maybe use the tax money for our own issues?

See, this would be the obvious answer.
I for one think the rest of the world can go straight to hell. Spend our money, OUR TAX MONEY on us. There shouldn't be one damn dime cent over seas until everyone in the US is taken care of 1st. Once that is done, whatever we have left over we split. Half goes into a retirement pool, and the other half can be used for global poverty stuff.

 

[piasabird]

Secure the border and maybe some conservatives might consider other social issues.

 

[Genx87]

I believe Al gore's promises would cost 1 trillion in new spending. Same with Kerry's in 2004. This makes Obama look like a somewhat fiscally minded adult instead lol

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Do you have a link to an itemized spending list for Obama's 188 proposals?

That would be a good starting point as well.

i haven't seen an itemized list of these proposals with what each would cost. I would guess that most of them are probably listed on his website, although I don't know if he'd show the expected costs.

Unfortunately, I'm limited to dial-up access right now so I can't do much searching. I did come across the following site that claims to be sort of a fact check on Obama spending. http://www.politifact.com/trut...truth-o-meter-part-ii/
On that site they list some of the proposals and dispute RNC projections that the costs would be $874.4 Billion, saying that they actually amount to $459 Billion. The linked article is from Feb 29th so I'd assume things have changed a bit.

I have heard Obama say that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners but, if these numbers are accurate, I think he's still going to come up real short.

When it comes to govt spending. Take the highest estimate and double it. That will give you a more true cost of a project.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Speaking of capital gains taxes, does everyone here realize that raising them has consistently led to less capital gains tax revenue? yeah... that's right.

Anyways...

I know that the reduction in capital gains has led to increased revenues but I haven't seen where increasing the cap gains has led to a decrease. I'm not trying to say that it's not true, it would stand to reason that it is but, can you cite a source that it is definately true?

Let's think logically...the increase is proposed for Long Term capital gains tax because short term is taxed at your marginal tax level anyway. So that means it's someone that's held stocks for more than a year and profitable on those stocks. Let's say they raise the rate from 15% to 28%. Would you sell any of your Long Term gains? Hell no, you lock up your account and you go away so you don't have to pay any taxes.

I completely agree with the logic. As I said, "it stands to reason". I was just wondering if there was data to back up the logic.

Raising the capital gains tax is likely to decrease revenue. Withdrawal from Iraq will probably cause war costs to increase, at least for a year or two. That leaves raising taxes on just high income earners, cutting tax breaks for corporations, and taxing carbon pollution as the only revenue generators I've heard of so far. These will fall short of correcting the mess were in now, much less paying for the other spending proposals.

I know there are a whole lot of Obama supporters in this forum. Do any of you have any more info that I've not yet heard? Does he have any specific plans to slash wasteful spending? Has he talked about any other ways he would generate revenue?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: halik
How about we stop funding 3rd world countries in middle east and maybe use the tax money for our own issues?

See, this would be the obvious answer.
I for one think the rest of the world can go straight to hell. Spend our money, OUR TAX MONEY on us. There shouldn't be one damn dime cent over seas until everyone in the US is taken care of 1st. Once that is done, whatever we have left over we split. Half goes into a retirement pool, and the other half can be used for global poverty stuff.

It's hard to argue with that logic. I would never say the rest of the world can go to hell. I do think it's important to help where we can when we can. I do agree that the priority should be on correcting our own problems and pretty much it is.

Originally posted by: piasabird
Secure the border and maybe some conservatives might consider other social issues.

Good point. We need to find a way to secure the border while still encouraging legal immigration.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I believe Al gore's promises would cost 1 trillion in new spending. Same with Kerry's in 2004. This makes Obama look like a somewhat fiscally minded adult instead lol

Of course, Gore and Kerry were typical politicians and they lost. Obama is a different kind of politician. We can trust everything he says because he's honest and has integrity. If he says he's going to implement over $300 billion worth of new spending proposals, I believe him. I am still having a little trouble with the part about how were going to pay for them and the existing debt problem.