2012 Budget

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

That's one of the scariest things you will ever read, you know, aside from an M Night Shyamalan script.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/president-obamas-budget-and-the-pending-budget-fight.html

Now here's the intereting thing from the ABC News article... at no point in the President's 10-year projection would the US spend less than it is taking in .. yet if you believe the Obama administration in just 5 short years the only deficits we'll have are going to be paying interest on the current debt.

Should be a very interesting few weeks.

Oh please, ending Bush tax cuts for rich + closing corporate loopholes, including offshore tax shelters + end subsidies for big oil + cut military budget = problem solved.

Why does everything have to be done on the backs of the poor?  I'm sickened by the way the debate has shifted from 'how can we improve the economy and jobs' to 'how many services for the poor and working poor can we cut in order to keep our tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.' 

ps.  The fastest, most effective solve, of course, would be a single-payer healthcare system, which would turn the deficit into a surplus in a few short years. 

The Bush tax cuts for the rich equals about $36 billion a year... our PROJECTED deficit for next fiscal year is 1.1 trillion, so now you're down to 1.08 trillion in deficits... according to the ABC article and Obama's own numbers... Big oil subsides = 4.6 billion a year so now you're down to 1.075 and the DoD voluntarily removed 78 billion from their future budgets (over 5 years)for projects they no longer wanted.. so we're at say, a trillion dollars now (we'll say they all happen next year)

There are a trillion dollars in tax loopholes and offshore shelters annually!? HOLY FUCK!

/s

It would be absolutely fascinating to see Snaieke's theoretical budget issues if we hadn't elected Obama.

I kind of hate the new site. Double post.

You elected a lemon, Jacob. I understand you being bitter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm for tax increases, everywhere.. as long as there is spending cuts, everywhere. I'm for tarriffs on imports from countries like China. What I want and what will happen are vastly different things..

You catch Trumps interview on CNN about this? good times.

Snaieke, a) where are you getting your figures?; and b) add in single-payer.  Single-payer countries pay half what we do on health care yet have better outcomes. 

Also, when you've only bashed Obama since his emergence, your opinion on him now is hardly relevant.  Even if he walked on water and turned loaves into fishes, righties like you would still call him a lemon. 

ETA: I'm with you on tariffs.  Look up the percentage of govt revenue based on tariffs before and after around 1980. 

YT, I don't have to add in anything... you're talking about something that is not a reality. We'll never have a single payer health care system in America.. if you couldn't get it passed with a Democratic super majority .. it ain't happening. Subject is moot. The figures are on this very page and I've had this exact same discussion with you in the economy thread.. unfortunately you just don't read it, I guess and it isn't worth my valuable time to break down everything every other post with you. I mean... most everything was on this very page and you didn't even read it. (see quote below)... I'm for eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, that is 3 trillion over 10 years or 300 billion a year. I just don't see that happening either, because politicians want to be elected and people aren't ready for those hard decisions.　

I mean, seriously... this is the only budget before an election year. You think Obama or anyone who is up for election is going to increase taxes or make those hard spending cuts during an election year? I don't. Congress punted the budget during an election year and pushed off the Bush tax cuts until the lame duck session... that pretty much answers any questions on what 2012 is going to look like. Right now, the GOP is saber rattling about spending cuts and calling our debt the new Red Menace... if ever there was a time to readdress the tax code to hold politicians feet to the proverbial fire and force their rhetoric to meet policy.. now is that time. I'd love the hell out of Obama if he ACTUALLY addressed our deficits, not just talk but action... as it stands now I'm seeing a net increase in spending and a net increase in debt from when he took over office and talk of deficit reduction is just a smoke and mirror show. We're past the point where we'll see how effective Obama is at budgets or spending or whatever... this is it. This budget is going to be what we judge for the 2012 elections and it is falling far short of what needs to be done.*

ETA.

Let's also not forget that Obama had a deficit commission that was supposed to come up with answers for our future debt and deficits and he swore that they would come back in November 2010 (after the election, how convenient) with their finding and that he would have congress put them to work! Well that deadline came and went... the commission came up with 4 trillion dollars in cuts and this would be the budget to enact those findings... now, there isn't exactly a whole lot of details available on the budget outside of the links on this page but it seems a far cry short of what that commissions recommended, which begs the point of the commission and the time wasted waiting for their findings.

* for those of you that don't know.. this budget if \ when passed will take effect October 2011 for the October 2011 to September 2012 fiscal calander year.

Snaieke, the public is overwhelmingly for ending tax cuts for the superrich and closing corporate loopholes.  It's only the GOP in Congress that insists on them, the Senate to be specific.  It's worth noting that there never was a Dem majority in the Senate because the GOP's unprecedented abuse of the filibuster.  If it had been a true super majority, we may not have had single-payer but we'd probably have a public option. 

Anyone hear an elephant in the room? No? Just me?

Anyone notice the aneurysm taking place in the House right now?  Republicans are trying to slash and burn every program they hate under the pretext of fiscal responsibility.  Meanwhile here are the numbers:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/special-bulletin-fractions-have-denominators/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/why-have-deficits-exploded/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/budget/longtermfact2.cfm

 It is sickening.  It's like a manufactured shock doctrine on steroids.  I really hope that public opinion turns on these clowns and they're left with their corporate sponsorships and their "don't tread on me" flags. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Closer 

Somewhere outside of Los Angeles yt's head just exploded.

Boom!  :)

It's not an intriguing idea, Bluelouboyle, it's yet more wealth redistribution to the top.  And opposition has nothing to do with unionization.  It has to do with taxpayer investment -- the land, the engineering, the labor involved, the maintenance-- all the millions in taxpayer money invested in our public properties given away to private corporations for a song so they can rent it back to us at monopoly prices?  I blame the lack of civics education in schools for the utter self-destructive streak of Americans who see selling off hard-fought, dearly paid-for public property as some kind of ^%&^ing bargain.  Sorry to be cranky about it. 

yea, I don't know why anyone would think giving corporations a monopoly over critical infrastructure like highways is a good idea.  Really, guys?

So you want to convert all our highways into a series of toll roads?!?!?

What are we trying to solve again?

How do the private entities make money from their roads if they're not charging tolls?

They force you to stop every 15 minutes and watch holographic ads on your dashboard?

There's a trial going on right now of a judge who sent kids to private prisons for a million dollars in kickbacks.  We spend on military contractors many times what we pay troops to perform services overseas, yet we have no quality control, no oversight of these people who engage in things like rape, sex trafficking, manslaughter, murder and an insane degree of fraud.  With troops performing these duties, they can always pick up their arms and fight if they have to, but we have to pay for more contractors to protect the contractors we're already paying for.  Privatization takes the money we all pay as taxpayers and hands it over to corrupt people who enjoy corrupt relationships with public officials.

Privatization of parking meters in Chicago yielded a steep increase in costs and inefficiency as the machines couldn't handle the level of use.  Also, the private companies added weekends and 24 hour days to its schedule.

Privatization of any public service or property is something every taxpayer should be passionately against.  It's only when we forget all that came before, all the blood, sweat and tears that went into creating a livable, functional commons, that people will buy this longterm goal of big business to convince us that it's a good "idea" to sell it off. 

Yeah, rising gas prices are not enough, we need to charge people for road access more.

Simply put, privatisation almost always favours the rich over the poor in some way. That's a gross generalisation obviously, but I feel it's a pretty solid jumping off point.

The Closer and Bluelouboyle, you will never convince me that privatization of public services and property is a good thing.  I believe that when we the taxpayers invest in things over a long period of time, it's unscrupulous and unfair to allow politicians to sell them off in times of real or perceived crisis at distress sale prices.  Sorry.  Public institutions have some responsibility to the public trust; private companies do not, and have proved many times over that they're interested in profit over all over considerations, that they see everything as a commodity, and that they will use up that commodity until exhaustion or collapse.  There aren't many George Baileys left, at least in this country; they're all Potters.

Bluelou, I agree with you about the price of gas.  Americans are deluded about the true cost.

Let me backtrack for a minute.  Who pays for the massive fraud perpetrated by Wall St. (I'm not talking about you here; you know who I'm talking about) that did such a number on the housing market and threw state budgets into chaos?  Who pays for the massive outsourcing that reduced state income taxes to a trickle?  These are widespread problems that were caused by uber-capitalists and then have to be solved by the public sector. 

I think this country (maybe the world -- except for a few places like Germany and North Dakota) need to reinterpret the narrative about a) trickle down economics and b) globalization of markets. 

I have to look into Illinois' situation to give any kind of rational response, which I will do.  I can see with what we're doing in California that corporations pay almost no taxes and revenue is kind of the real problem here. 

I'm not sure what problem you are all trying to solve here. You're saying it's a given a private entity can manage a highway better than a government agency? Why?

Better marketing department?

If people had to spend $12 a day driving from the burbs to the city on I-94 you'd be singing a different tune.

Isn't 294 $3 at each toll?

Selling off the highways is just more shock doctrine.

The bottom line, I think, is this.  When you have thirty years of lobbying and campaign contributions that chip away at the amount of weight corporations and the very rich have to pull in keeping our services running, and codify completely unethical and unfair practices (like big banks borrowing at zero interest from us the taxpayers and then turning around and loaning it back to us with interest, hedge funds helping themselves to huge chunks of pensions and savings, corporations using tax shelter post office boxes to dodge taxes, etc.), you end up with a huge, dysfunctional imbalance.  This has to be corrected for our economy to function on a national and local level.  The middle class cannot be simultaneously squeezed and locked out and then expected to carry the weight of all the taxes the rich and the corporations aren't paying. 

The way I look at it is this: corporate taxes aren't a burden, they're a privilege.  This is a country that allowed those billionaires to achieve that degree of prosperity.  It is their duty to pull their weight.  If they don't like it, they can move to Zimbabwe and good f&&&ing riddance.  Entrepreneurs will take their place who practice a more local model.  That would be a healthy development.  Big corporations have had a free ride since Reagan came into office and stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  It's been a long accumulation of power and privilege since then.  That needs to be rolled back. 

The Closer, ok, I'm reading articles now about the tax hike.  So, Illinois hadn't raised taxes since 1989?   So, even though it's a 66% rate hike, it's still nowhere near the highest in the country.  Here's a comparison chart:  http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf

Also, Illinois appears to have a flat rate for all income tax brackets.  How about creating a progressive model to not squeeze working people but target those who've been getting a free ride?

Also, I think cigarette and other sin taxes are fine.  We seem to have one every year here in California.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Closer 

You dont sell the highways, you lease them.

The principal is the same. 

A house isn't the same as a public road or highway either.  And I think you overstate the recourse the public has once a deal like this has been made.  It takes a lot of wherewithal to stand up for the citizens with private companies throwing money at you to do their will.  I think it's a slippery slope, and if you give an inch you've already lost. 

Just wondering, but how does the math work out for this to the benefit of the people?  A private company's only going to want to lease a highway if it can make a profit on it (higher than it would for the next best investment opportunity), even if there are terms that limit the rate it can charge.

What's the benefit to the public?  The government gets money now rather than what it could alternatively raise in taxes/bonds/etc. that take more time?  The government isn't actually making money, it's basically a loan.

And man, if all the highways in Los Angeles were privatized and made toll roads, it'd suck if you had to do the 110/105/405 or any combination of highways.

At this rate I'm expecting a Snow Crash kind of United Stated within about 30 years.  Maybe we'll get lucky and have that cool Matrix style internet to keep our minds off of things.