Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,797
    vCash
    1500

    The Official United States FY2012 Budget Thread

    The budget is set to be released tomorrow by the White House so it will be a heavy day for the talking heads on Fox News/MSNBC/CNN but i want to do our best to weed through their crap and see what we can sort out. As soon as someone gets a link to the budget itself and a factual analysis of the budget please post it. I want to try to make this as much of a bipartisan discussion as possible.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,797
    vCash
    1500

    Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.

    Obama's new budget projects that the deficit for the current year will surge to an all-time high of $1.65 trillion. That reflects a sizable tax-cut agreement reached with Republicans in December. For 2012, the administration sees the imbalance declining to $1.1 trillion, giving the country a record four straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.

    Senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget, said that Obama would achieve two-thirds of his projected $1.1 trillion in deficit savings through spending cuts including a five-year freeze on many domestic programs.
    Source: MSNBC.com
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,797
    vCash
    1500

    Rep. Ryan rips Obama budget before its release: 'Small on spending discipline'

    The chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), said Sunday that while he doesn't want to pre-judge President Obama's budget, all signs point to a plan that will continue to raise the nation's debt.

    "We'll see the details of this budget tomorrow, but it looks to me that it's gonna be very small on spending discipline, and [contain] a lot of new spending and so called investments," Ryan predicted in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

    Obama administration officials say the president's budget will cut an estimated $1.1 trillion over the next ten years.

    But the Republican said the early reports on Obama's budget plan have not been promising and he panned the president's proposal for a spending freeze, noting that freeze would come "off an extremely high base."
    Source: The Hill
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,589
    vCash
    1500
    I have to admit, I'm disappointed with what I've been reading so far. We should be running on a surplus within the next 5 years, not just trim the deficit to $600 billion a year (which is how I interpret what the current plan is, maybe I'm reading it wrong though).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    From what I've read I see no Defense spending cuts.....

    EDIT: I do like alot of things in the list posted below, but again there isn't even a mention of trimming down our defense budget
    Last edited by The Schmooze; 02-14-2011 at 03:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Source: The Hill
    An interesting term, deficit savings...

    How about zero deficit? Given the issue we have with the debt, I don;t know how anyone can justfy any budget that continues any deficit spending in any form.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,847
    vCash
    1500
    This is from the American for Tax Reform, which is generally on the right, but they listed some facts here that I hadn't seen in other places.

    http://www.atr.org/obamas-fy-budgetbr-taxes-more-a5844

    Obama's FY2012 Budget:
    Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes
    From Ryan Ellis on Monday, February 14, 2011 12:00 PM

    President Obama released his budget this morning. Rather than focusing on Washington’s over-spending problem, the budget calls for higher taxes on families and small businesses to pay for even more government spending. Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.


    Tax hike lowlights include:

    Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
    Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
    Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
    Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
    New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
    New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
    New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
    Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
    Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
    Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
    A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
    Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
    Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law. That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

    The “tax relief” in the budget is mostly just an extension of present law, and also some refundable credit outlay spending in the tax code. There is virtually no new tax relief relative to present law in the President’s budget.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,847
    vCash
    1500
    I will say that I don't see the plan, as I understand it thus far, getting far without some major changes. There's nothing cutting defense or the entilements, so to me it just seems like more of the same. Sweep the problems down the road and let the next president deal with it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,797
    vCash
    1500
    As it stands now Obama has made it clear that the top marginal rates will increase in 2013 (i think it is 2013 not 2012). I have made my point that i have no problem bringing those rates down if someone shows me (cough, cough Iraq War) a way of reducing the deficit at least by the $70B in revenue it is expected to lose.

    As it stands now i dont see the budget reductions from anyone to expect that continuing the tax rates as they are makes sense. We cant have a policy of lower taxes and increase spending and expect fiscal solvency. Democrats dont want to lower spending and Republicans dont want to raise taxes. But when the people expect government to do tasks X, Y, and Z they dont seem to think it needs to be paid for through their taxes.

    Also for the small businesses who meet the 250K threshold lets not forget that will be after expenses (meaning $1.5M and $1.4M in expenses gets taxed at 100K, not even half the 250K cap). The business has to reach $250K in profits, not revenue to meet that threshold, which is much tougher to do than reach $250K in revenue. A business making $250K revenue may or may not be in good fiscal health, whereas a business making $250K in profits is going to be in rather good fiscal health.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    vCash
    1500
    The solution to the nation's biggest and most pressing problem, a lack of decent-paying jobs, is what again? Dramatically slashing spending? How about we instead tax those who reaped the vast majority of the benefits from our last economic expansion rather than letting them export that wealth? Oops, sorry, I guess that would be a tax increase. Now back to balancing the budget by slashing education, and heating oil for the poor.
    I'm going to list ALEC in credits as associate producer of creating horrifying things for us to talk about -John Oliver

    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,847
    vCash
    1500
    Obama budget could boost fees on air travelers

    By DAVID KOENIG, AP Airlines Writer David Koenig, Ap Airlines Writer – Mon Feb 14, 4:13 pm ET
    Airline travelers would pay more to help finance airport projects under President Barack Obama's budget plan.

    The president's budget released Monday would raise the "passenger facility charge" to a maximum of $7 from $4.50 per flight to offset $1.1 billion in cuts to airport grants. Airports use the passenger-charge money for FAA-approved safety and expansion projects.

    Just because it's in the president's budget doesn't mean the increased facility charge will fly. Some Republicans with a hand in writing aviation laws have different ideas. Airlines are also fighting the proposal, saying it amounts to a $2 billion tax increase on the flying public. Airline executives argue the increase could discourage more people from flying.

    Todd Hauptli, a lobbyist for the American Association of Airport Executives, said the grant cuts would hurt critically needed safety, security and capacity projects at airports around the country.

    Airport advocates, such as consultant Mike Boyd, were outraged that Obama would cut airport spending while proposing $53 billion for high-speed rail. "Rail won't work — it's a 19th-century solution," he said. "Meanwhile, airports will have 30 percent less to do the things we need to do."

    The provisions were included in Obama's $129 billion budget for the Transportation Department. An agency spokesman said Obama would protect grant money for smaller airports that don't have other revenue sources while letting bigger ones raise money for capital projects with the higher passenger charges.

    Last year the House approved a bill that would have let airports raise the charge up to $7, but the Senate version of the bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration didn't include a raise. The bill died anyway.

    The House is now under Republican control. Last week Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the new chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and new aviation subcommittee chairman Rep. Tom Petri, R-Wis., notably left the $4.50 limit on passenger charges unchanged in their FAA overhaul bill.

    The passenger charge is levied on each flight segment, which is one takeoff and one landing. For example, a passenger flying from Dallas to Detroit with a stop in Chicago would pay the charge twice, once for each leg of the trip.

    Airlines say raising the passenger fee would slow the recovery in airline travel, which helped the airlines earn about $2.3 billion in profit last year after losing billions in 2008 and 2009.

    Delta Air Lines Inc. CEO Richard Anderson wrote in the airline's in-flight magazine, Sky, that raising the fee to $7 would mean that a family of four would pay $112 in passenger charges on the average trip. He assumes they make one stop on their outbound trip and another going home, for a total of four legs.

    The passenger charge is just one item in the president's $3.73 trillion budget for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Obama's plan would reduce federal deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade but wouldn't cut as deeply as his own deficit commission recommended.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/...get_air_travel

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,797
    vCash
    1500
    I dont know how much that would affect flying, but this speaks to what i have said time and time again. If we want government spending on projects such as airline safety then we are going to need to pay for it. The only other options are to not have the spending, in this case safety is a high priority when we are talking about being 35,000 feet in the air; also we can print the money to pay for the safety and then of course we have the inflation fears and other problems associated with printing money.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,847
    vCash
    1500
    This has a graph that breaks down what the proposed budget represents.

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html.../index.html?hp

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500

    Another Review of the President's Proposed Budget

    From the US Global Leadership Coalition:

    International Affairs Budget UpdateFebruary 14, 2011

    USGLC Commends the President’s FY 2012 International Affairs Budget as Critical Part of National Security Budget
    House Appropriations Committee’s Spending Cuts for FY2011 Raise Serious Concerns
    The USGLC applauds the Administration’s FY 2012 International Affairs Budget request as a critical investment in America’s national security. At a time of intense pressures to cut spending and in the context of an overall freeze on non-security funding, the President has presented an International Affairs Budget that protects America’s security interests and maintains U.S. global leadership while also reflecting the need to be more efficient and responsible with every dollar spent.
    The President’s FY2012 request comes at a time of great uncertainty for FY2011 spending levels with a vote expected later this week in the House of Representatives to cut $100 billion from discretionary programs. While both the President’s budget request and the House Appropriations proposal focus on curtailing spending, they offer different views as to how to achieve fiscal constraint.
    As for the International Affairs Budget, one of the most significant differences is how the Administration and House Appropriators categorize these programs. For the past five budgets, Republican and Democratic Administrations have grouped International Affairs within a cluster of spending categories that collectively make up the U.S. National Security budget. This bipartisan recognition of the critical role our civilian agencies contribute to our national security mirrors the calls from military voices including Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, and General David Petraeus.
    As a result, the Administration’s request exempts the International Affairs Budget from President Obama’s proposal to freeze non-security spending for five years while the House proposal categorizes these programs as non-security funding, cutting the civilian programs far greater than other security agencies.
    House FY11 Proposals Serious Concern
    Legislation introduced last week by the House Appropriations Committee is of serious concern as it inflicts significant cuts to pending FY2011 International Affairs spending levels by 19%. The proposed levels in the House would weaken many of the important bipartisan achievements made over the past several years and specifically jeopardize critical national security investments in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
    FY12 Request Highlights Savings from Military Drawdown
    As part of the Administration’s $3.73 trillion FY2012 Budget, the International Affairs request for the first time is divided into two parts that mirror how the Defense Department has organized its budget for several years. The request includes a “core” budget and an “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” account, separating the core programs from those aspects of the budget that address extraordinary, temporary expenses related to the growing civilian responsibilities in the Frontline states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
    The most significant aspect to this new framework is the whole-of-government savings from the combined military-civilian OCO funds. As civilian efforts ramp up in the Frontline states, Department of Defense (DOD) resource needs fall dramatically. As a result, total OCO funding will decline by 25%, or $41 billion, from FY2010 levels.
    The $53.1 billion “core” budget, by far the largest component, would increase by only 3.1% in FY2012 compared with the FY2010 base appropriation. The second component – the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account -- includes $8.7 billion reflecting major policy shifts related to the transfer of substantial responsibilities from DOD to the State Department in these countries. The bulk of the OCO increase is the result of shifting responsibilities and budget authority from the Pentagon to the State Department and USAID for police training in Iraq, building counterinsurgency capacity in Pakistan, and bolstering State’s ability to operate more extensively with adequate security in Iraq as U.S. military forces withdraw.
    The entire increase for the International Affairs Budget represents a mere 0.14% of the overall FY12 Budget request. Putting this in perspective:
    • The entire International Affairs Budget is a mere 1.7% of the total FY2012 Budget.
    • As both Republican and Democratic Administrations have done the past four years, the International Affairs Budget, along with Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, is included as part of the broader U.S. National Security budget, representing 7.1% of that total.
    • At this level of funding, the International Affairs Budget represents only 0.38% of GDP.
    About This Update
    The USGLC will continue to update this analysis as additional information becomes available in the coming weeks on both the Administration’s FY2012 request and congressional action on FY2011 appropriations. In the meantime, unless otherwise noted, budget comparisons are based on the FY2012 request relative to the FY2010 enacted base appropriation, which consists of the regular appropriation bill, supplementals for the Frontline states, and “forward funding” that was appropriated in FY2009, but intended for FY2010 requirements.
    Included in this Update:
    1. USGLC Statement
    2. Methodology of Budget Update
    3. Overview: FY2011 Appropriations Battle
    4. Overview: FY2012 Request
    5. Highlights: FY2012 Request
    6. Notable Programs & Reforms
    7. Account-by-Account Detail of Core Request
    8. Additional Informationa and Resources









    More details at:
    http://www.usglc.org/wp-content/uplo...t-Analysis.pdf

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    From the US Global Leadership Coalition:

    International Affairs Budget UpdateFebruary 14, 2011

    USGLC Commends the President’s FY 2012 International Affairs Budget as Critical Part of National Security Budget
    House Appropriations Committee’s Spending Cuts for FY2011 Raise Serious Concerns
    The USGLC applauds the Administration’s FY 2012 International Affairs Budget request as a critical investment in America’s national security. At a time of intense pressures to cut spending and in the context of an overall freeze on non-security funding, the President has presented an International Affairs Budget that protects America’s security interests and maintains U.S. global leadership while also reflecting the need to be more efficient and responsible with every dollar spent.
    The President’s FY2012 request comes at a time of great uncertainty for FY2011 spending levels with a vote expected later this week in the House of Representatives to cut $100 billion from discretionary programs. While both the President’s budget request and the House Appropriations proposal focus on curtailing spending, they offer different views as to how to achieve fiscal constraint.
    As for the International Affairs Budget, one of the most significant differences is how the Administration and House Appropriators categorize these programs. For the past five budgets, Republican and Democratic Administrations have grouped International Affairs within a cluster of spending categories that collectively make up the U.S. National Security budget. This bipartisan recognition of the critical role our civilian agencies contribute to our national security mirrors the calls from military voices including Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, and General David Petraeus.
    As a result, the Administration’s request exempts the International Affairs Budget from President Obama’s proposal to freeze non-security spending for five years while the House proposal categorizes these programs as non-security funding, cutting the civilian programs far greater than other security agencies.
    House FY11 Proposals Serious Concern
    Legislation introduced last week by the House Appropriations Committee is of serious concern as it inflicts significant cuts to pending FY2011 International Affairs spending levels by 19%. The proposed levels in the House would weaken many of the important bipartisan achievements made over the past several years and specifically jeopardize critical national security investments in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
    FY12 Request Highlights Savings from Military Drawdown
    As part of the Administration’s $3.73 trillion FY2012 Budget, the International Affairs request for the first time is divided into two parts that mirror how the Defense Department has organized its budget for several years. The request includes a “core” budget and an “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” account, separating the core programs from those aspects of the budget that address extraordinary, temporary expenses related to the growing civilian responsibilities in the Frontline states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
    The most significant aspect to this new framework is the whole-of-government savings from the combined military-civilian OCO funds. As civilian efforts ramp up in the Frontline states, Department of Defense (DOD) resource needs fall dramatically. As a result, total OCO funding will decline by 25%, or $41 billion, from FY2010 levels.
    The $53.1 billion “core” budget, by far the largest component, would increase by only 3.1% in FY2012 compared with the FY2010 base appropriation. The second component – the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account -- includes $8.7 billion reflecting major policy shifts related to the transfer of substantial responsibilities from DOD to the State Department in these countries. The bulk of the OCO increase is the result of shifting responsibilities and budget authority from the Pentagon to the State Department and USAID for police training in Iraq, building counterinsurgency capacity in Pakistan, and bolstering State’s ability to operate more extensively with adequate security in Iraq as U.S. military forces withdraw.
    The entire increase for the International Affairs Budget represents a mere 0.14% of the overall FY12 Budget request. Putting this in perspective:
    • The entire International Affairs Budget is a mere 1.7% of the total FY2012 Budget.
    • As both Republican and Democratic Administrations have done the past four years, the International Affairs Budget, along with Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, is included as part of the broader U.S. National Security budget, representing 7.1% of that total.
    • At this level of funding, the International Affairs Budget represents only 0.38% of GDP.
    About This Update
    The USGLC will continue to update this analysis as additional information becomes available in the coming weeks on both the Administration’s FY2012 request and congressional action on FY2011 appropriations. In the meantime, unless otherwise noted, budget comparisons are based on the FY2012 request relative to the FY2010 enacted base appropriation, which consists of the regular appropriation bill, supplementals for the Frontline states, and “forward funding” that was appropriated in FY2009, but intended for FY2010 requirements.
    Included in this Update:
    1. USGLC Statement
    2. Methodology of Budget Update
    3. Overview: FY2011 Appropriations Battle
    4. Overview: FY2012 Request
    5. Highlights: FY2012 Request
    6. Notable Programs & Reforms
    7. Account-by-Account Detail of Core Request
    8. Additional Informationa and Resources









    More details at:
    http://www.usglc.org/wp-content/uplo...t-Analysis.pdf
    I fully suggest that anyone who is critical of this report, look up the membership. This is not a group to be taken lightly by either side of the political spectrum.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •