Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Actually, it's a very good idea, growth-promoting bigtime.
It would:
- increase the Pentagon's budget by $38 billion; - expand and extend tax credits for parents paying for child care, college students paying tuition and low-wage childless workers; - help pay for preschool for 4-year-olds from poor and middle-income families; - begin a four-year program to improve roads, bridges and railways nationwide; - extend unemployment insurance; - devote $215 million to research what's known as "precision medicine," which involves using patients' genetic information to tailor medications specifically to their bodies; - set up a dedicated fund for fighting wildfires;
Those are just a few main points. It would not increase the deficit and would in fact begin to pay down the national debt. Several significant tax proposals would more than make up the difference, they say. Officials say the plan would yield a $474 billion deficit, or 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product, about where deficits have been over the past 50 years.
The federal deficit increased sharply during the financial crisis, first because Americans were making less and paying less in taxes as a result, and because Congress passed a major economic stimulus bill to help the recovery. Since then, lawmakers and the president have agreed to major cuts in federal spending, taxes have gone up and the deficit has now declined ....
"Several significant tax (increase) proposals would more than make up the difference," and therein lies your problem, bad thinking.....NO WAY... Let the people keep THEIR money to Spend as they see fit...not as OBama,or any other politician would spend your money
>> Let the people keep THEIR money to Spend as they see fit
haha, jerk that knee. If only it were so black and white. Read the details; much to like, some things probably to dislike.
\\\ A disproportionate share of Obama’s proposed capital gains tax increases would fall on the wealthiest Americans: The top 0.1 percent of households -- those with incomes exceeding $3.4 million -- would pay 35 percent of the higher levy.... It would affect fewer than 1 percent of households with incomes below $500,000. Using different methodology, the Treasury Department says an even greater share of the costs are borne by the wealthiest households, with more than 80 percent of the burden on the top 0.1 percent. \\\There would be some winners. Owners of small businesses would be able to defer the tax until the business is sold, and owners of closely held businesses would be able to spread the taxes over 15 years.
Same old song....rob the rich for" betterment" of the poor.....popular song among small thinkers......problem DOESNT WORK....never has never will....tried since Robin Hood Look how much better off the wage earners are since last Obama tax increase on rich? Think of some other song
Would not affect you, Tb, unless very wealthy, and it has worked superbly many times, if you actually knew your history. A pity you have to conceive of it in terms of robbery. Do you pay property taxes? How come? And by BO tax increase, you mean attempting to return to Reagan-era rates?
I am reminded of a quote by a famous Republican, 'deficits don't matter'. That statement was ridiculous and offensive. Obama once made a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half. He knew it was a lie at the time, but it sure did sound good. Of course we know politicians, in general, have become mere caricatures of the truth. They say just enough to capture the illusion of righteousness, while hoping to be marginally useful, while creating a legacy and lifelong pension. Of course the current state of the nation has been just a mere inconvenience. It was that way when I got here, they must be saying. And, of course, the truth involved is just too painful to meaningfully do anything. People can only accept the truth when there's a crisis. Wait, we don't seem to have learned anything from 2008 either. It really is quite depressing. My question: When is enough, enough? Politicians once saved us from monopolistic corporations and then replaced them. Now we have a monopolistic political system where the illusion of the truth is good enough and they're slowly boiling us.
Budgets matter and if you spend too much, eventually you fail. It really is that simple.
>> Wait, we don't seem to have learned anything from 2008 either. It really is quite depressing. My question: When is enough, enough? >> they're slowly boiling us. >> Budgets matter and if you spend too much, eventually you fail.
Do you read in this area at all? It's not like a household budget in any way, shape or form. All that matters is *debt as a percentage of GDP*. Now is a good time to spend, on say infrastructure and similar, since the need is urgent, it would stimulate spending and hence growth, and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Are you seriously aware of the actual variables and issues here?
'Do you read in this area at all?' Hm, interesting way to start. 'Are you seriously aware of the actual variables and issues here?' Another unnecessary jab but so be it. You are correct the state budget is not like a household budget, in any way, shape or form. No, it is much more important. If a household fails, the nation survives. If the nation fails, well, that's another problem. There's a story floating out there where Russia, during the 2008 crisis, urged China to dump its Fannie and Freddie bonds. Whether it is true or not is open to debate, but ask yourself, what if it had been true and what if it had happened? Not having your finances in order creates a weakness and in this world, we cannot afford to be weak.
Not dealing in foreign hypotheticals: everyone wants to buy our notes, as always, then and now. Ready buyers. US finances are not in particularly bad order, and much better than they were. What makes you assert that they are? Sorry if this seems a jabbing or offensive question to you, but it was your post. Tell what you are basing your worries on: 'enough enough, boiling us' (who is us, who is they?), 'spend too much', etc. How are we weak financially speaking?
All budget debate now has to do with public social policy questions and only that, nothing more. What should we spend on, and why? It is not as though we lack the money.
I've tried to have an honest debate with you, but I'm faced with the question, is there anything I could say that could reach you? I'm faced with the reality of the answer being, no. I'm fine with that. Have a good night.
"They say just enough to capture the illusion of righteousness, while hoping to be marginally useful, while creating a legacy and lifelong pension. Of course the current state of the nation has been just a mere inconvenience."
Well said, and unfortunately becoming increasingly true as time goes on.
"everyone wants to buy our notes, as always, then and now."
And forever, right? The idea that they want to buy our notes because we are currently what, around 1.7 on the 10yr while other major nations have much lower (or negative) yields does not seem to be a vote of confidence as much as it seems to be a TINA for money sloshing around the world. I'd like demand to be because we're an example to the rest of the world, not because we're currently the best house in a bad neighborhood and sooner than later, the money sloshing around the world sloshes somewhere else because it has no belief in the underlying economy as much as it's simply searching for yield in a world where negative interest rates are actually a thing in a number of major countries (and it wouldn't surprise me if it becomes a thing in this one.)
"Now is a good time to spend, on say infrastructure and similar, since the need is urgent, it would stimulate spending and hence growth, and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Are you seriously aware of the actual variables and issues here?"
Now would be a good time to have leaders, too. We don't seem to have any. We have no "plan", no vision, no path towards a sustainable future. Spending would be nice if there was an actual vision as to creating a sustainable future rather than pointing the money firehose at whatever problem comes along and hoping there's enough money to wash it away for the time being. QE is simply a way to buy time for politicians who have no grand ideas and no desire to do anything but play political games. At this point after 2008, we have more than a dozen surprise rate cuts in other nations (Australia last night, cutting their rate to a record low) and QE in Europe and Japan.
Would it be a great time to spend money on PRODUCTIVE ASSETS (high speed rail - which is common in other countries - might happen on a large scale in this country a few decades from now, we don't even really have it beyond a very small scale right now) that will benefit the whole? Sure. Will it happen? Nah, or - and this has only gotten worse in the last ten years - money will be promised to something that sounds great to the voters and then much of it will wind up in the hands of cronies and little of it will actually result in the promised improvements. I'm not saying that China doesn't have problems, far from it - but where they threw so much money was at assets. Thousands of miles of high-speed rail built in 6 years. Significant improvements in infrastructure. China's economy is absolutely not without problems, but they got it right in pushing to build infrastructure that was/is useful to the broader population and helpful to the productivity of the broader economy.
If someone believes that any spending is good spending, then they're probably cheered by this anyways. However, I'm starting to feel the country is a little similar to Sears - financial engineering takes a priority while the core of the underlying "business" (lack of infrastructure improvements and many other things that would benefit the whole vs the few) is neglected. The financial engineering story people buy into and it looks good and feels good until the underlying business starts to show more noticeable cracks after being neglected. Eventually, more and more aggressive measures of financial engineering are required.
"There's a story floating out there where Russia, during the 2008 crisis, urged China to dump its Fannie and Freddie bonds"
It also comes down to the idea of do you trust the government to effectively run the nation's finances. I'd say no, but I haven't for a long time. It should be very visible (perhaps not to the apologists) that the majority is an afterthought and the priority is wholly and completely the few (corporations and specifically banks, who are coddled and catered to; the wealthy and various cronies.)
Will we come up with a grand plan to help our aging infrastructure in an era of ZIRP? PPP's (Public Private Partnerships, which have been reasonably successful in other countries)? Nah, because no one's willing to fight for anything or lead or really make a difference. Instead, a politician will blame the other side for that not getting done, which earns them a political point or two and enrages half the population at the other half, accomplishing nothing. The idea of civil discussion about important topics in this country continues to deteriorate into insults and shouting rather than listening and trying to come to an understanding that will help progress for the whole.
As for spending, these views that we can just spend, spend, spend because budgets and fiscal responsibility don't matter must go over like porn in DC. And so much has been spent in the last several years and what grand improvements have been made? Our infrastructure revitalized and caught up with the rest of the world? Nah. Education improvements? Certainly doesn't seem that way. Healthcare that now everyone has to have but whose costs are still flying higher and whose architect said it passed because Americans are stupid? Well, yeah, we have that.
"*debt as a percentage of GDP*"
And GDP keeps disappointing. You have the easiest monetary policy in history, trillions of dollars in QE and that longer-term US GDP growth chart isn't exactly a confidence builder. Six years of ZIRP and we're not at 3% GDP?
Even the San Francisco Fed has now admitted how persistently overly optimistic (and wrong) the Fed's GDP predictions have been.
I am reminded of a quote by a famous Republican, 'deficits don't matter'. That statement was ridiculous and offensive. Obama once made a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half. He knew it was a lie at the time, but it sure did sound good.
As a matter of fact, both in raw dollars and as a measure or percentage of the economy defined as GDP, the deficit has indeed been cut in half.
February 2 Flag (Tax increases)Would not affect you, Tb, unless very wealthy
See Davey...there's your problem again, You think tax increases on others don't matter to YOU....I know they affect me and my Country..... Tax increases, balanced budgets, political policy making Affects EVERYONE and YOUR well being as a citizen..in a democracy.....believe it!
Fwiw: To many tax loop holes for this to work. It's been said that Buffet pays less in tax than his hired help. Companies setting up shop outside U. S. , cutting taxes ! More coffee please, Derf
“There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.” - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics winner
A galaxy used to be a huge number, now it's a rounding error. If dollars were seconds a billion is worth 32 yrs, a trillion 32,000 yrs. To paraphrase the divine Ms. Tomlin no matter how big number innumerate you become, it's never enough to keep up.
'tax increases won't affect you unless very wealthy' - it's a joke, dave, right? 529 overhaul, limitation on tax deferred pension accounts in this age of non-existent defined benefits and many other wonderful proposals affect me a lot, and i am not wealthy: i happened to work for a living, and my husband is happened to be gainfully employed, for a lovely AMT and stealth tax combination... and we live in a very high income state with no deductions for property taxes and even dependent children..
your fervent marxism that comes across all your comments should be held in check a bit. not that the budget proposal has any future of course, but it is very telling where our president's beliefs are -- no need to dress these up, he is not running for re-election.
a quote: "...the exercise is .. a warning about the tax-and-spending trajectory of liberal governance absent reform or Congressional restraint."
i would wholeheartedly agree on the complete tax code overhaul and simplification even if it meant a loss of mortgage interest deduction and such, but was transparent and fair to all. but this is a non-starter -- too many interested parties on both sides of the isle. these latest re-distribution games that encourage foodstamp+iphone generation are affecting the gainfully employed much more than they do those that are truly wealthy.
lolz, made my evening. Too funny. (Like reading the WSJ opinion pieces.)
What do you think would be 'fair to all'? Honest question. I was going to ask the same of Tbay, though it sounds as though he would prefer things left as they are, not changes.
I didn't realize the latest 'games' encouraged Those People on foodstamps.
The term "those people" is not derogatory. For those of us not on food stamps or EBT which is the modern method, the word those is used correctly.
All this PC wrangling of the english language needs to stop. No wonder people do not talk to each other anymore. With that said, I identify said people as members of the government dependent class.
Most SNAP recipients work. SNAP is seriously time-limited, also. But you gotta read about these things, and/or know some working poor, to realize all this stuff, and ignore the rightwing talk radio bunk.
Significant SNAP cuts have taken place since the above article.
@PmU: thanks but lol, not even close to a leftist. Of course today with the hard-right GOP it's easy to get tarred so, and among some here as well, evidently. As with mutual funds, I do favor facts, data, reality, which, as the saying goes, have a clear liberal bias.
@JC, initial-capping 'those people' was an attempt at ironic humor.
and so the Gov. choices continue...should we have a vote: tax em and spend as we (the Gov.) sees fit........ or should they (the people) keep the money they earn and spend it to THEIR benefit and growth of the Country......hard choice??? not for me.....
Comments
It would:
- increase the Pentagon's budget by $38 billion;
- expand and extend tax credits for parents paying for child care, college students paying tuition and low-wage childless workers;
- help pay for preschool for 4-year-olds from poor and middle-income families;
- begin a four-year program to improve roads, bridges and railways nationwide;
- extend unemployment insurance;
- devote $215 million to research what's known as "precision medicine," which involves using patients' genetic information to tailor medications specifically to their bodies;
- set up a dedicated fund for fighting wildfires;
Those are just a few main points.
It would not increase the deficit and would in fact begin to pay down the national debt. Several significant tax proposals would more than make up the difference, they say. Officials say the plan would yield a $474 billion deficit, or 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product, about where deficits have been over the past 50 years.
The federal deficit increased sharply during the financial crisis, first because Americans were making less and paying less in taxes as a result, and because Congress passed a major economic stimulus bill to help the recovery. Since then, lawmakers and the president have agreed to major cuts in federal spending, taxes have gone up and the deficit has now declined ....
More interesting data here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/02/a-simple-guide-to-obamas-new-proposals-for-spending-and-taxes/
Won't go much of anywhere, of course.
and therein lies your problem, bad thinking.....NO WAY...
Let the people keep THEIR money to Spend as they see fit...not as OBama,or any other politician would spend your money
haha, jerk that knee. If only it were so black and white. Read the details; much to like, some things probably to dislike.
\\\ A disproportionate share of Obama’s proposed capital gains tax increases would fall on the wealthiest Americans: The top 0.1 percent of households -- those with incomes exceeding $3.4 million -- would pay 35 percent of the higher levy.... It would affect fewer than 1 percent of households with incomes below $500,000. Using different methodology, the Treasury Department says an even greater share of the costs are borne by the wealthiest households, with more than 80 percent of the burden on the top 0.1 percent.
\\\There would be some winners. Owners of small businesses would be able to defer the tax until the business is sold, and owners of closely held businesses would be able to spread the taxes over 15 years.
etc.
Look how much better off the wage earners are since last Obama tax increase on rich?
Think of some other song
And by BO tax increase, you mean attempting to return to Reagan-era rates?
'small thinkers' is as good as poppycock, thanks.
Budgets matter and if you spend too much, eventually you fail. It really is that simple.
>> they're slowly boiling us.
>> Budgets matter and if you spend too much, eventually you fail.
Do you read in this area at all? It's not like a household budget in any way, shape or form. All that matters is *debt as a percentage of GDP*. Now is a good time to spend, on say infrastructure and similar, since the need is urgent, it would stimulate spending and hence growth, and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Are you seriously aware of the actual variables and issues here?
All budget debate now has to do with public social policy questions and only that, nothing more. What should we spend on, and why? It is not as though we lack the money.
Well said, and unfortunately becoming increasingly true as time goes on.
"everyone wants to buy our notes, as always, then and now."
And forever, right? The idea that they want to buy our notes because we are currently what, around 1.7 on the 10yr while other major nations have much lower (or negative) yields does not seem to be a vote of confidence as much as it seems to be a TINA for money sloshing around the world. I'd like demand to be because we're an example to the rest of the world, not because we're currently the best house in a bad neighborhood and sooner than later, the money sloshing around the world sloshes somewhere else because it has no belief in the underlying economy as much as it's simply searching for yield in a world where negative interest rates are actually a thing in a number of major countries (and it wouldn't surprise me if it becomes a thing in this one.)
"Now is a good time to spend, on say infrastructure and similar, since the need is urgent, it would stimulate spending and hence growth, and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Are you seriously aware of the actual variables and issues here?"
Now would be a good time to have leaders, too. We don't seem to have any. We have no "plan", no vision, no path towards a sustainable future. Spending would be nice if there was an actual vision as to creating a sustainable future rather than pointing the money firehose at whatever problem comes along and hoping there's enough money to wash it away for the time being. QE is simply a way to buy time for politicians who have no grand ideas and no desire to do anything but play political games. At this point after 2008, we have more than a dozen surprise rate cuts in other nations (Australia last night, cutting their rate to a record low) and QE in Europe and Japan.
Would it be a great time to spend money on PRODUCTIVE ASSETS (high speed rail - which is common in other countries - might happen on a large scale in this country a few decades from now, we don't even really have it beyond a very small scale right now) that will benefit the whole? Sure. Will it happen? Nah, or - and this has only gotten worse in the last ten years - money will be promised to something that sounds great to the voters and then much of it will wind up in the hands of cronies and little of it will actually result in the promised improvements. I'm not saying that China doesn't have problems, far from it - but where they threw so much money was at assets. Thousands of miles of high-speed rail built in 6 years. Significant improvements in infrastructure. China's economy is absolutely not without problems, but they got it right in pushing to build infrastructure that was/is useful to the broader population and helpful to the productivity of the broader economy.
If someone believes that any spending is good spending, then they're probably cheered by this anyways. However, I'm starting to feel the country is a little similar to Sears - financial engineering takes a priority while the core of the underlying "business" (lack of infrastructure improvements and many other things that would benefit the whole vs the few) is neglected. The financial engineering story people buy into and it looks good and feels good until the underlying business starts to show more noticeable cracks after being neglected. Eventually, more and more aggressive measures of financial engineering are required.
"There's a story floating out there where Russia, during the 2008 crisis, urged China to dump its Fannie and Freddie bonds"
This was stated by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-asked-china-to-dump-fannie-bonds-in-bid-to-collapse-the-us-financial-system-2010-1, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ffd950c4-0d0a-11df-a2dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QgL5nL8H, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26609548). I'd believe it. Did it pass or was it settled? Sure. Do I believe that other nations in this world love us so much that they would never, ever undermine us financially if they had the chance? LOL, of course I don't. It may not happen tomorrow, but I'd not be surprised in the least if it did. Foreign policy in this administration and the prior one hasn't exactly helped strengthen friendships with other nations around the globe.
It also comes down to the idea of do you trust the government to effectively run the nation's finances. I'd say no, but I haven't for a long time. It should be very visible (perhaps not to the apologists) that the majority is an afterthought and the priority is wholly and completely the few (corporations and specifically banks, who are coddled and catered to; the wealthy and various cronies.)
Will we come up with a grand plan to help our aging infrastructure in an era of ZIRP? PPP's (Public Private Partnerships, which have been reasonably successful in other countries)? Nah, because no one's willing to fight for anything or lead or really make a difference. Instead, a politician will blame the other side for that not getting done, which earns them a political point or two and enrages half the population at the other half, accomplishing nothing. The idea of civil discussion about important topics in this country continues to deteriorate into insults and shouting rather than listening and trying to come to an understanding that will help progress for the whole.
As for spending, these views that we can just spend, spend, spend because budgets and fiscal responsibility don't matter must go over like porn in DC. And so much has been spent in the last several years and what grand improvements have been made? Our infrastructure revitalized and caught up with the rest of the world? Nah. Education improvements? Certainly doesn't seem that way. Healthcare that now everyone has to have but whose costs are still flying higher and whose architect said it passed because Americans are stupid? Well, yeah, we have that.
"*debt as a percentage of GDP*"
And GDP keeps disappointing. You have the easiest monetary policy in history, trillions of dollars in QE and that longer-term US GDP growth chart isn't exactly a confidence builder. Six years of ZIRP and we're not at 3% GDP?
Even the San Francisco Fed has now admitted how persistently overly optimistic (and wrong) the Fed's GDP predictions have been.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-02/persistently-over-optimistic-fed-admits-there-persistent-over-optimism-about-us-econ
February 2 Flag
(Tax increases)Would not affect you, Tb, unless very wealthy
See Davey...there's your problem again, You think tax increases on others don't matter to YOU....I know they affect me and my Country.....
Tax increases, balanced budgets, political policy making Affects EVERYONE and YOUR
well being as a citizen..in a democracy.....believe it!
More coffee please, Derf
A galaxy used to be a huge number, now it's a rounding error. If dollars were seconds a billion is worth 32 yrs, a trillion 32,000 yrs. To paraphrase the divine Ms. Tomlin no matter how big number innumerate you become, it's never enough to keep up.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lilytomlin383212.html
your fervent marxism that comes across all your comments should be held in check a bit. not that the budget proposal has any future of course, but it is very telling where our president's beliefs are -- no need to dress these up, he is not running for re-election.
a couple of wsj pieces:
• Taxes unlimited – WSJ http://goo.gl/KhvZcA
• Obama unchained – WSJ http://goo.gl/nBjop0
(may be this link will work: wsj.com/articles/obama-unchained-1422924306
a quote: "...the exercise is .. a warning about the tax-and-spending trajectory of liberal governance absent reform or Congressional restraint."
i would wholeheartedly agree on the complete tax code overhaul and simplification even if it meant a loss of mortgage interest deduction and such, but was transparent and fair to all. but this is a non-starter -- too many interested parties on both sides of the isle. these latest re-distribution games that encourage foodstamp+iphone generation are affecting the gainfully employed much more than they do those that are truly wealthy.
lolz, made my evening. Too funny. (Like reading the WSJ opinion pieces.)
What do you think would be 'fair to all'? Honest question. I was going to ask the same of Tbay, though it sounds as though he would prefer things left as they are, not changes.
I didn't realize the latest 'games' encouraged Those People on foodstamps.
All this PC wrangling of the english language needs to stop. No wonder people do not talk to each other anymore. With that said, I identify said people as members of the government dependent class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/why-are-47-million-americans-on-food-stamps-its-the-recession-mostly/
Most SNAP recipients work. SNAP is seriously time-limited, also. But you gotta read about these things, and/or know some working poor, to realize all this stuff, and ignore the rightwing talk radio bunk.
Significant SNAP cuts have taken place since the above article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/28/food-stamps-will-get-cut-by-5-billion-this-week-and-more-cuts-could-follow/
Deep South and Appalachia hit very hard.
@PmU: thanks but lol, not even close to a leftist. Of course today with the hard-right GOP it's easy to get tarred so, and among some here as well, evidently.
As with mutual funds, I do favor facts, data, reality, which, as the saying goes, have a clear liberal bias.
@JC, initial-capping 'those people' was an attempt at ironic humor.
It all depends on what the meaning of ..insert word here is. That one phrase changed society for the worse. No irony there.
Over and out.
tax em and spend as we (the Gov.) sees fit........
or should they (the people) keep the money they earn and spend it to THEIR benefit and growth of the Country......hard choice???
not for me.....