Obama's First Speech to Congress

[bush_cheney2004]

And then he made the government bigger than ever.

Not according to PATCO!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yBU2IH33oeM/Rm06...,%2Bpicture.jpg

[Shady]

And then he made the government bigger than ever.

That's simply not true. Taking income tax rates from 70% to 28% isn't growing government.

[BubberMiley]

That's simply not true. Taking income tax rates from 70% to 28% isn't growing government.

He did cut taxes (though not nearly to the extent you claim), but he also grew the size of government and paid for it by irresponsibly increasing the deficit substantially.

[stevoh]

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire

Why the heck anyone would reduce taxation by that amount during an expensive war is beyond me. Its almost like the massive deficit increase was intentional.

Tax breaks for individuals should only occur during times of prosperity (so yes I disagree with Obama on this), and should effect all taxed people (not just the rich).

When you have a massive spending increase, reducing income by 338 BILLION dollars is a foolish idea.

I don't have time to go through all of the items in the list, but this one caught my eye:

$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Why does is this a tax on businesses? The advanced earned income tax credit is for INDIVIDUALS who want their employers to add their Earned Income Tax Credit to their paycheck. It has no net cost to business from what I can tell, its a way of getting your EITC funds on each paycheque rather than a lump sum at tax time.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96515,00.html

In fact, the tag line from the IRS for employers is:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=129062,00.html

"Help your employees increase their take–home pay at no cost to you!"

The accuracy of the list is suspect.

[August1991]

And then he made the government bigger than ever.

What Obama is proposing is far beyond anything that Reagan did (or Bush Jnr did), and Obama's projected borrowing is on a scale only Bob Rae could understand.

Obama wants to increase government spending by 50% and projects a government tax income increase of 25%: the federal government spending will increase to $3.5 trillion while revenues increase to $1.7 trillion. The US federal government will spend $2 of which $1 is paid by tax revenues and the other $1 raised by taxes.

Bubbler, as a Canadian, how would you feel about such a budget? Barack Obama is Bob Rae on steroids.

----

Looking at American threads, I'm surprised how American liberals support his spending proposals without noting that half the spending will be based on borrowed money.

Barack Obama's proposed budget turns the US federal government into a Ponzi scheme.

Edited February 28, 2009 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Barack Obama's proposed budget turns the US federal government into a Ponzi scheme.

Correct...and that's why it is not going to happen. It is unsustainable even with the rosiest of Obama projections. It will be death by a thousand cuts.

[WIP]

Why the heck anyone would reduce taxation by that amount during an expensive war is beyond me. Its almost like the massive deficit increase was intentional.

Now you're getting it! A charitable evaluation would be that Republicans were either careless, or unable to negotiate the spending cuts needed to balance their budgets. Both Reagan, the hero of the Republican Party, and George Bush, the man who's name could not be mentioned at the recent CPAC Conference, were following a deliberate strategy to create massive deficits, and destroy the Welfare State by making it impossible to fund any social spending, especially replacing HMO's with government health insurance. The only government spending that the Republicans feel are worth keeping are generous farm subsidy payments and ofcourse military spending, which can be guaranteed the lions share of the federal budget by scaremongering terrorism or the Chinese.

Back in Dec. of 1981, the recently fired budget director for the Reagan Administration - David Stockman, gave this interview to the Atlantic, where he made known his contempt for Administration officials who worried excessively about deficits, and were unable to see the opportunity presented to force the Democratically controlled House, and the liberal Republican controlled Senate to make drastic cuts in domestic spending. His dream was later brought to fruition ironically by the tagteam of Clinton/Gingrich in the 90's.

Tax breaks for individuals should only occur during times of prosperity (so yes I disagree with Obama on this), and should effect all taxed people (not just the rich).

It has been mentioned numerous times already that George Bush is the first president to drastically cut taxes during wartime (if undeclared war). When the country rallied around their president for leadership, he didn't tell them that he would have to increase taxes, bring in rationing, or even start a war bonds campaign -- no, he just said SPEND your money -- even if you don't have it presumably, since many Americans had to max out their credit cards and take out equity loans against their homes to do their patriotic duty and keep the consumer economy going during a period that would have otherwise been a recession.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It has been mentioned numerous times already that George Bush is the first president to drastically cut taxes during wartime (if undeclared war).

Patently false numerous times.....Kennedy - Johnson tax cuts were enacted during an undeclared war....Vietnam. Bush's tax cut started at much smaller marginal tax rate(s).

[WIP]

Patently false numerous times.....Kennedy - Johnson tax cuts were enacted during an undeclared war....Vietnam. Bush's tax cut started at much smaller marginal tax rate(s).

I was already aware that JFK had cut what had been a very high top income tax rate of the Eisenhower Administration, but when he was assassinated, the U.S. only had about 11 to 12,000 soldiers supporting the South Vietnamese government. It certainly didn't qualify as a major war until LBJ escalated the War by mobilizing over half a million U.S. soldiers at its peak. I wasn't aware that Johnson cut taxes; I thought he increased taxes, along with spending on domestic projects and the military.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was already aware that JFK had cut what had been a very high top income tax rate of the Eisenhower Administration, but when he was assassinated, the U.S. only had about 11 to 12,000 soldiers supporting the South Vietnamese government.

JFK never realized the tax cuts...it was President Johnson and Congress in 1964. These "drastic" war time reductions in marginal rates would be sustained through the massive Vietnam escalation.

It certainly didn't qualify as a major war until LBJ escalated the War by mobilizing over half a million U.S. soldiers at its peak. I wasn't aware that Johnson cut taxes; I thought he increased taxes, along with spending on domestic projects and the military.

See above. Picking and choosing what constitutes a "major war" just doesn't work in this case. Iraq was no Vietnam (at many levels).

Edited March 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

See above. Picking and choosing what constitutes a "major war" just doesn't work in this case. Iraq was no Vietnam (at many levels).

They are both undeclared wars for that matter. You can determine what constitutes a major war by the level of commitment that's demanded of the nation by the president. When JFK checked out, there were still less than 12,000 U.S. service men in Vietnam, which certainly would not have had a major economic impact -- thus the point about cutting taxes during wartime.

An argument could have been made that the top marginal tax rates during Eisenhower, were too high, and encouraged fraud and corruption by executives trying to shelter their income; but Bush's tax cuts only served to make the filthy rich even filthier rich, and encourage the investment bubbles that artificially inflated equity and real estate values.

Bush wanted Iraq to be considered a war when it was to his benefit. The American Public was not asked to make any commitment to the War aside from spending money. There was no draft, so no one had to serve if they didn't want to, and even though the cost of the Iraq War (which may be over 3 trillion dollars when it is wrapped up) played a major part in the doubling of the National Debt during the Bush Years, no economic sacrifices were asked. The bill was just charged forward to future generations of Americans to pay for.

[bush_cheney2004]

They are both undeclared wars for that matter. You can determine what constitutes a major war by the level of commitment that's demanded of the nation by the president. When JFK checked out, there were still less than 12,000 U.S. service men in Vietnam, which certainly would not have had a major economic impact -- thus the point about cutting taxes during wartime.

There was no tax cut when JFK "checked out".....US escalation soared at the same time as tax cuts. That is the point.

An argument could have been made that the top marginal tax rates during Eisenhower, were too high, and encouraged fraud and corruption by executives trying to shelter their income; but Bush's tax cuts only served to make the filthy rich even filthier rich, and encourage the investment bubbles that artificially inflated equity and real estate values.

Nonsense....all marginal rates were cut...."filthy rich" or not. The rich did not chase unaffordable homes with NINJA loans.

Bush wanted Iraq to be considered a war when it was to his benefit. The American Public was not asked to make any commitment to the War aside from spending money. There was no draft, so no one had to serve if they didn't want to, and even though the cost of the Iraq War (which may be over 3 trillion dollars when it is wrapped up) played a major part in the doubling of the National Debt during the Bush Years, no economic sacrifices were asked. The bill was just charged forward to future generations of Americans to pay for.

That's all well and good, but it was not the first time a president signed tax cuts into law during "wartime".

Edited March 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

There was no tax cut when JFK "checked out".....US escalation soared at the same time as tax cuts. That is the point.

It was in JFK's budget proposal for 1964. The tax cuts are attributed to Kennedy for that reason; they were not Johnson's ideas, he just tabled the budget that had been drafted by the Kennedy Administration. And the War was still a minor venture until later that year when Johnson was able to escalate the War after getting the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So you're wrong! They did not occur at the same time:

President Kennedy proposed a tax cut lowering the top marginal rate by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964 by Lyndon Johnson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. Johnson expanded their numbers and roles following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (less than three weeks after the Republican Convention of 1964, which had nominated Barry Goldwater for President).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson#Vietnam_War

Nonsense....all marginal rates were cut...."filthy rich" or not. The rich did not chase unaffordable homes with NINJA loans.

No, they sold the loans, and now that they are in default, the taxpayers are left with the bill.

That's all well and good, but it was not the first time a president signed tax cuts into law during "wartime".

You are splitting hairs to try to salvage what's left of Dubya's reputation! Scale has to be taken into consideration here. Would you consider the Panama Invasion to be a war? It makes a big difference when the war becomes a multi-trillion dollar venture combined with major tax cuts.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was in JFK's budget proposal for 1964. The tax cuts are attributed to Kennedy for that reason; they were not Johnson's ideas, he just tabled the budget that had been drafted by the Kennedy Administration. And the War was still a minor venture until later that year when Johnson was able to escalate the War after getting the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So you're wrong! They did not occur at the same time:

Minor venture in your imagination.....it was a war all the same.

No, they sold the loans, and now that they are in default, the taxpayers are left with the bill.

Taxpayers are always left with the bill....tell us something we don't know.

You are splitting hairs to try to salvage what's left of Dubya's reputation! Scale has to be taken into consideration here. Would you consider the Panama Invasion to be a war? It makes a big difference when the war becomes a multi-trillion dollar venture combined with major tax cuts.

No salvage operation required.....I lived through Vietnam War, Cold War, and Great Society programs in the USA (with tax cuts)....I don't have to pretend from afar.

[Oleg Bach]

Minor venture in your imagination.....it was a war all the same.

Taxpayers are always left with the bill....tell us something we don't know.

No salvage operation required.....I lived through Vietnam War, Cold War, and Great Society programs in the USA (with tax cuts)....I don't have to pretend from afar.

That cold war deal was rough on the kids - drilling and putting your head under the desk - going to bed every night believing that this may be the night we are nuked...Vietnam - I lived with the dodgers in Toronto - and rode across Canada with former snipers who wore dried ears and gold teeth of the Gooks...B C - what these younger men and woman do not realize about leadership or about democracy - is it is YOU - that is in control - not some Obama - or double U - or Harper - in a democracy you must take responisblity -- do your duty..we are the government - not some mythical figure head that they all worship like delluded fools...time to grow up.......There - just spanked the less mature members of the forum...next!