Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

[Trajan]

One tax that should definitely be raised is the rate on carried interest for hedge funds and private equity funds. That rate is 15%, the capital gains rate. This is egregious and should be taxed as income. It is not capital gains and should not be taxed as such.

Carried interest is the fee a hedge fund or private equity fund manager makes when he generates profit on other people's savings. A typical fund charges 20% on the profits it generates for clients. So if a $1 billion hedge fund generates a 20% return, it takes $40 million in profits. That money is taxed at 15%, so the hedge fund manager's tax bill will be $6 million. However, if you are a CEO and you generate a salary plus bonus of $40 million, you are taxed at 35%, or $14 million. This is distortionary, and rewards speculative rather than productive behavior. The fund manager should be taxed at the same rate as everyone else.

This is one of the loopholes Obama proposes be closed. The Democrats should absolutely dig their heels in on this one.

whoa, I thought dodd-frank was going to change that....

oh wait its coming to me....a dinner at Le Cirque, a few hearty back slaps, a wink and nod for campaign pledges...( or sppt. for a spot on the Hollywood payroll) ...and....*woosh*

 

[AVG-JOE]

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

Then let Social Security make its payments from the so-called "trust fund" and refrain from using any revenues from the general fund.

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

 

[DontBeStupid]

We’re clearly dealing with a radical minority of extreme rightists who harbor this infantile notion that all taxes are ‘bad.’

They cling blindly to their dogma – facts be damned.

America is consequently held hostage by rightist ignorance.

If Federal Income Taxes are so great why do only 50% of us pay them?

Because, as has been brought up many times, we are at 16.4% underemployment.

If you want people to pay more in income taxes, get them a job.

 

[WillowTree]

We’re clearly dealing with a radical minority of extreme rightists who harbor this infantile notion that all taxes are ‘bad.’

They cling blindly to their dogma – facts be damned.

America is consequently held hostage by rightist ignorance.

If Federal Income Taxes are so great why do only 50% of us pay them?

The reason is simple

In order to get their tax cuts for billionaires, Republicans had to offer up token cuts for the working poor. That pushed many below the line of having to pay Federal Taxes

Now, Republicans like Willow want to take back those cuts......for the working poor.......not the billionaires

You'll have to link me to somewhere that says the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is an Republican piece of legislation.

 

[WillowTree]

We’re clearly dealing with a radical minority of extreme rightists who harbor this infantile notion that all taxes are ‘bad.’

They cling blindly to their dogma – facts be damned.

America is consequently held hostage by rightist ignorance.

If Federal Income Taxes are so great why do only 50% of us pay them?

Because, as has been brought up many times, we are at 16.4% underemployment.

If you want people to pay more in income taxes, get them a job.

that's the demonRats job.. they hold the gavel.. they whine,, but they hold the gavel.

 

[martybegan]

It all comes down to the mission we are expected to perform around the globe. Compared to the actual threat (no nation can compete with the US military) we have a military force much larger than is needed. We drew down our military after the Cold War because the Soviet Threat was gone. We have since allowed the military to grow back to Cold War levels

We are asking Americans to sacrifice at all levels. In an era of Domestic hardship can we afford to keep our current military?

Chinese military? Who gives a **** about the Chinese Military? They cant even invade Taiwan, how can they invade the US? The primary mission of the Chinese Military is to keep 1.5 billion Chinese under control, not to fight the US

YOU were the one who called our military larger than the next 10. I proved you wrong. Evidently you care about it.

Now if you want to go by cost, yes ours costs more, because the US military principle since WWII has been that bodies are worth more than equipment and ordinance. The US method of making war is expensive in terms of money, but cheaper in terms of lives than other methods because we lavish our troops with the best technology availible, and plan out 20 years into the future to make sure we keep that edge. its what allows us a relatively small army per capita.

I guess you would prefer we go with less well equipped troops, now and 20 years from now.

The domestic crisis is caused not by defense spending, with the exeption of deployment costs (Ill give you that), but by promises made on entilements that no one really cared about worrying how to manage them. Add in current federal tasks that are best left to state/local governments and thats how we are spending more than we take in.

The US doctrine is force multipliers. Use technology, training, doctrine and tactics to make small forces more powerful. That is why your listing the number of Chinese troops was meaningless. We learned a long time ago, it is not your numbers but how you use them

I am not advocating disbanding or making our troops more vulnerable. What drives our military budget is the mission they have been given to do. Our Navy is more powerful than all the worlds Navies combined, we have more nuclear capability, no nation is close to challenging our control of the skies, our Army is the most advanced in history......Nobody can challenge us

Where is the threat?

North Korea could decide to take a trip south. We are sworn to help the South Koreans
Iran could decide to Invade Iraq to take pressure off of thier domesitc issues
India/Pakistan could decide to continue where they started
Some damn fool thing in the Balkans, Kosovo still isnt a settled issue
Colombia/Venezuela could decide to heat things up
Central Africa could go to hell.
Piracy (still happening)

Lets also add some terrorist assholes going the nuke/chem/bio route. If that happens we will need to threaten ANY country that allows them safety, and that takes a strong conventional military, unless we threaten to nuke whoever harbors the planners/backers/perpetrators.

All of these scenarios might not require US intervention to solve, but they require a Strong, capable, projecting US military in being to PREVENT. We also have to take into account that attacking us might not seem logical, not all of our enemies ARE logical.
Japan wasn't exactly using logic when it attacked Pearl Harbor, it thought it would lead to a big sea battle that would lead us to suing for peace. Didnt quite work out that way.

Also force multipliers are not cheap, and go out of date rather quickly, hence the cost. Cutting defense spending not including deployment costs by undeploying results in a less trained, less motivated and less well equipped military.

And YOU, again, brought up "larger than the next 10 militaries." I just countered your claim. And yes, it may work for cost, but those other really big really cheap militaries do it by combining conscritption with a combination of purchasing/owning 30 year old crap and crappy internally made equipment. Something you dont want to emulate.

 

[martybegan]

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

Then let Social Security make its payments from the so-called "trust fund" and refrain from using any revenues from the general fund.

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

Who do you think pays out on those T-Bills?

 

[Too Tall]

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

Wrong answer dipshit. Cut spending. We are taxed enough and have been for far too long.

Trying to protect your paycheck and job moocher? Government is way too large.

Fair enough...I work for the Dept of Defense and I will offer up cuts right now

What happened to the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War?
Why does the US need 11 Carrier Task Forces when no other nation has one?
Why do we need 2500 nuclear weapons and the subs, missiles and bombers to carry them? Nukes haven't been used in 60 years
Get the **** out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Why is the US Military larger than the next ten militaries combined?

Before we start asking Americans to sacrifice healthcare, education, police, fire protection and infrastructure, let's look at our military mission around the globe

Seven other nations have at least one CAG. (Carrier Air Group) and be prepared for Iran to launch a nuke or blackmail the rest of the middle east with nukes within the next few years. The only times this century that we have been attacked was when we were seen by an enemy to have a weak military.

Have you checked the size of the Chinese and North Korean military lately? I am impressed with your military knowledge. What branch of the service did you serve in?

 

[Too Tall]

During the 80's & 90's spending was limited by PAYGO so there WAS a surplus in current revenues - the debt was still there, but deficit spending was not allowed. The credit card was kept in a drawer for safe keeping while payments were being made. If PAYGO were permanent, congress would have had to pay for all the shit they promised since 2003 instead of simply 'charging' ahead.

(Nice pun, eh? )

I think you and anyone else that is under the false impression that there was some kind of surplus under Clinton need to read this...

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus.

I stand corrected. Apparently deficit spending was alive and well during the 90's.

Doesn't diminish the value of returning to PAYGO. At least then we were making some headway against the debt.

I guarantee our deficit wouldn't be the huge problem that it has become if PAYGO hadn't expired in 2003.

And I guarantee that the PAYGO doesn't help at all.

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress.

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.

At the beginning of the 111th Congress, PAYGO was modified by including an "emergency" exemption. This designation was provided for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which increased the deficit and increased the public debt limit to $12,104,000,000,000.

On February 12, 2010, Obama signed statutory PAYGO rules into law.

The paygo point of order does not apply to "direct spending" if it is incorporated into an annual or supplemental appropriations spending bill. The difference between direct spending and annual appropriations is that the former becomes permanent law with U.S. government spending on various entitlements that continues until the government acts to increase or reduce it. An annual appropriation bill provides spending authority to the government for a project or program that only lasts a year. Paygo was designed to apply to direct spending only. So one way of circumventing the point of order, is to include the direct spending increases in an annual appropriation bill, which was done for the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

One tax that should definitely be raised is the rate on carried interest for hedge funds and private equity funds. That rate is 15%, the capital gains rate. This is egregious and should be taxed as income. It is not capital gains and should not be taxed as such.

Carried interest is the fee a hedge fund or private equity fund manager makes when he generates profit on other people's savings. A typical fund charges 20% on the profits it generates for clients. So if a $1 billion hedge fund generates a 20% return, it takes $40 million in profits. That money is taxed at 15%, so the hedge fund manager's tax bill will be $6 million. However, if you are a CEO and you generate a salary plus bonus of $40 million, you are taxed at 35%, or $14 million. This is distortionary, and rewards speculative rather than productive behavior. The fund manager should be taxed at the same rate as everyone else.

This is one of the loopholes Obama proposes be closed. The Democrats should absolutely dig their heels in on this one.

whoa, I thought dodd-frank was going to change that....

oh wait its coming to me....a dinner at Le Cirque, a few hearty back slaps, a wink and nod for campaign pledges...( or sppt. for a spot on the Hollywood payroll) ...and....*woosh*

You know, I thought so too! But I just found out a few weeks ago that it hadn't passed.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong answer dipshit. Cut spending. We are taxed enough and have been for far too long.

Trying to protect your paycheck and job moocher? Government is way too large.

Fair enough...I work for the Dept of Defense and I will offer up cuts right now

What happened to the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War?
Why does the US need 11 Carrier Task Forces when no other nation has one?
Why do we need 2500 nuclear weapons and the subs, missiles and bombers to carry them? Nukes haven't been used in 60 years
Get the **** out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Why is the US Military larger than the next ten militaries combined?

Before we start asking Americans to sacrifice healthcare, education, police, fire protection and infrastructure, let's look at our military mission around the globe

Seven other nations have at least one CAG. (Carrier Air Group) and be prepared for Iran to launch a nuke or blackmail the rest of the middle east with nukes within the next few years. The only times this century that we have been attacked was when we were seen by an enemy to have a weak military.

Have you checked the size of the Chinese and North Korean military lately? I am impressed with your military knowledge. What branch of the service did you serve in?

North Korea?

They have the numbers but lack the economy to sustain an attack. They would be quickly demolished after the initial attack

China is enlarging their capability but are not even close to being a threat to the US. The primary mission of the Chinese military is to keep their own people in line. They lack a global presence

There is no immediate threat to US domination. To say that we need to keep the Military free from any budget cuts is not warranted. We could still cut our Military strength 25% and still be the most powerful nation by far

Nobody currently has a Carrier group of the size of a US carrier group. Never served, but worked for DoD for over 30 years

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

You put the "suck" in "sucker." All payments to Social Security come out of the general fund. There is no money in the trust fund and there never has been. If we "owe it to ourselves," then we also have to pay ourselves back. Where does the money for that come from? By taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other? You're still left with a net sum of zero.

Anyone who believes the SS trust fund has anything real in it is simply a moron.

 

[Article 15]

If Federal Income Taxes are so great why do only 50% of us pay them?

The reason is simple

In order to get their tax cuts for billionaires, Republicans had to offer up token cuts for the working poor. That pushed many below the line of having to pay Federal Taxes

Now, Republicans like Willow want to take back those cuts......for the working poor.......not the billionaires

You'll have to link me to somewhere that says the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is an Republican piece of legislation.

Lulz

The tax rates of the progressive tax system we are currently operating under were set in 2003 and were passed via reconciliation (you know, shoved down our throats as you might call it if DemonRats were doing it) by Republicans.

You dumb ****.

 

[bripat9643]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

I know that. that's why I told AVE-JOE we could pay benefits out of the fund. He and the rest of the Dims believe there's money in it. If that's the case, then let them operate on that delusion. The results should be spectacularly entertaining.

 

[bripat9643]

How much debt have we run up in those ten years? 9 Trillion?

$2.5 trillion was to borrow money to pay for Bush tax cuts, $2.5 trillion to pay for unfunded two wars, add in unfunded Medicare Part D (How many Fiscally responsible Republicans voted for those?)

Obama added $800 billion for stimulus and extended the tax cuts

How is any of that an argument against cutting spending to the rate we had 10 yeas ago?

 

[rightwinger]

How much debt have we run up in those ten years? 9 Trillion?

$2.5 trillion was to borrow money to pay for Bush tax cuts, $2.5 trillion to pay for unfunded two wars, add in unfunded Medicare Part D (How many Fiscally responsible Republicans voted for those?)

Obama added $800 billion for stimulus and extended the tax cuts

How is any of that an argument against cutting spending to the rate we had 10 yeas ago?

I'll do you one better

How bout we cut spending to the rate we had 100 years ago?

Makes as much sense

 

[AVG-JOE]

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

Does Social Security need to be addressed for the long term? Yes, but SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT PROBLEM! IT HAS A DEDICATED TAX AND IT'S OWN TRUST FUND.

This ain't rocket science - let's not try to make it rocket science, eh?

Then let Social Security make its payments from the so-called "trust fund" and refrain from using any revenues from the general fund.

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

Who do you think pays out on those T-Bills?

Let me simplify it. If I buy a savings bond (T-bill) and I cash it in when it matures, am I part of the spending problem because I loaned the U.S. money and I want to be repaid according to the terms of the contract?

I'll even give you the answer: No.

When the US Treasury sends a check to repay a loan made to the US by The Bank Of China, is THAT considered 'spending' or is it considered a 'deficit reduction' payment?

Every Social Security check that Treasury sends out to your sweet old granny and mine from the general fund is a partial repayment of a loan made by the SSA Trust fund, not deficit spending.

Holy ****... maybe this IS rocket science for some...

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think you and anyone else that is under the false impression that there was some kind of surplus under Clinton need to read this...

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus.

I stand corrected. Apparently deficit spending was alive and well during the 90's.

Doesn't diminish the value of returning to PAYGO. At least then we were making some headway against the debt.

I guarantee our deficit wouldn't be the huge problem that it has become if PAYGO hadn't expired in 2003.

And I guarantee that the PAYGO doesn't help at all.

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress.

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.

At the beginning of the 111th Congress, PAYGO was modified by including an "emergency" exemption. This designation was provided for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which increased the deficit and increased the public debt limit to $12,104,000,000,000.

On February 12, 2010, Obama signed statutory PAYGO rules into law.

The paygo point of order does not apply to "direct spending" if it is incorporated into an annual or supplemental appropriations spending bill. The difference between direct spending and annual appropriations is that the former becomes permanent law with U.S. government spending on various entitlements that continues until the government acts to increase or reduce it. An annual appropriation bill provides spending authority to the government for a project or program that only lasts a year. Paygo was designed to apply to direct spending only. So one way of circumventing the point of order, is to include the direct spending increases in an annual appropriation bill, which was done for the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to 2003 is when PAYGO had teeth. George W even stated that his tax cuts and his Medicare 'D' deal with Big Pharma would NOT have happened had PAYGO not expired in 2003.

Any reference to PAYGO after 2003 is lip service to the idea and nothing more....
Congress prefers an open charge account when it comes to feeding the machine that pays for elections.

 

[Kuros]

Then let Social Security make its payments from the so-called "trust fund" and refrain from using any revenues from the general fund.

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

This is very misleading. Social Security has reached a cash deficit phase.

The Congressional Budget Office created a stir when it reported last week that Social Security paid out $37 billion more than it took in last year. The CBO projected that Social Security would run perpetual cash deficits from this point on, rising from $45 billion this year to $118 billion in 2021.

Benefits need to be restricted or revenues increased. People are living longer and the Baby Boomers are graying.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think anyone who believes the gov't is going to get 2 trillion over the next 10 years from the millionaires and billionaires is smoking some serious weed. Raise the capital gains tax, yeah that'll help grow the economy. Not that this nonsense has a chance in hell of becoming law, but if it ever did we'd be looking at a DOA economy for the next 10 years, maybe longer.