http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-endorses-deficit-task-apf-3690851821.html?x=0
I had to laugh at this one. I’m not even on the committee, but I can come up with recommendation #1:
STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY AND PROPOSING NEW, COSTLY PROGRAMS.
My guess is that members of this task force will be paid salaries and add to the deficit while coming up with obvious answers.
It’s a precursor to raising taxes.
You missed the punchline of the joke. It’s a committee that meets after the November elections with recommendations.
Well bless his heart. He’s suggesting we do something about the budget 9 months from now. One can only guess what that baby is going to look like after everybody is safe from voters for another year.
I feel better already!
Note that Obama is on the sidelines on this, as it’s coming from Congress and he has done nothing more than “endorse” it. And it’s not all that clear how much support it has in Congress, from the OP’s link:
Heh, one side doesn’t want it because they’re worried it will raise taxes. The other side doesn’t want it because they’re worried it will cut spending.
Either we happen to be at the perfect level of compromise between the parties, or the whole thing is majorly FUBAR.
Except if you stop and bother with reality it becomes clear it your advice is actually quite bad. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
[QUOTE=Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress generated the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
[/QUOTE]
It would be better to stop giving tax cuts to the rich, stay out of unnecessary wars, and try harder to avoid economic downturns.
We don’t actually tax the rich. We tax medium- to high-income earners, and it’s hard to give tax cuts to anyone besides them because they pay such a large share of taxes (the top 10% by Adjusted Gross Income pay about 70% of all personal income tax; the bottom 50% by AGI pay about 3% of all personal income tax).
I’d be all in favor of taxing the rich, but congress would never go for it, since so many of them are rich. You don’t think Mr Kerry’s wife (as an example) got to be rich by paying taxes, do you?
“Taxing the rich” has a nice simple ring to it for the masses, I guess, who seem to have absolutely no idea how wealth works and how the wealthy protect assets from taxes.
Congress will do nothing of substance, ever, period, around taxes, particularly around taxing actual wealth. We are spending money like drunken sailors and passing along the costs to our children. We’ll “study” that some more with a task force after we get re-elected by the masses who want more services but want the tax burden to be on someone else, even if the someone else is their kid.
Blah blah blah. Some guy on the Internet thinks he knows more about wealth than me and wants to be condescending about it. Color me utterly unimpressed. Does anything you said have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the lion share of the deficit over the next ten years is caused by the Bush tax cuts?
This is an utterly cowardly proposal. This is just a way for congress to further abrogate its responsibilities. If you want to raise taxes, then have the guts to propose it and stand up and fight for it. You want to cut entitlements? Same for you. Don’t hide behind some “panel” and vote for their recommendations as lame ducks. What a bunch of chickenhearted cowards.
