here's a nice editorial piece from the "right-wing" WSJ that lays out quite simply the 2% illusion of taxing people making more than 250K and how that just isn't enough to pay for the spending this Congress has just done in the past couple of weeks, and now Obama is planning with universal health care and everything else on that list.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Jordan .

That article is a fantastic use of a straw man.  Apparently the only source of revenue for the federal government is individual income tax. Here's a WSJ article about all the industries worried about their subsidies drying up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561083268377547.html

 Also liked how often the article had to remind us how the oppressed minority of rich people are keeping us poor folks in style.

The vast majority of money to the govt is through individual tax incomes. According to the GAO in 2006, 60% of companies don't even pay taxes to the feds. I think it's around 75-25 split (invidivuals paying more, that is) in the end - that's the number that sticks in my head from a couple of years ago.

Furthermore, companies that do declare a profit, and pay taxes, they end up padding the cost of goods and services so that WE the consumer end up actually paying those taxes in the long run. When taxes go up on business, they simply pass that cost onto the consumer in some form or another.

The editorial is not a straw man. The reality is that it's not enough to increase taxes on people making 250,000 or more (which are often small business men and women who are providing the vast majority of jobs). The other night Obama said that averge Joe will not have their taxes raised a single dime. The avg Joe may not see the govt raise their taxes on us, but we'll see it through other means. And when the chickens come home to roost, I'm guessing anyone making more than 75K will have their taxes increased dramatically to pay for everything that Congress just passed and are planning to pass.

Just like we saw in the campaign, the definition of "rich" will continue to change until it hits middle-America, because in the scheme of things and throughout the world, America is "rich" and we should pay our fair share - remember, it's your patriotic duty*.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272009/photos/news011.jpg

* - Biden said it was your patriotic duty to pay taxes.

Jordan .

 so are you in favor of some kind of reforms that would fix these issues and force companies to pay proper taxes?

is IS a patriotic duty to pay taxes. i like having little things like highways, rural electrification, nasa (for the satellites anyway) and when i'm in a sour mood i even appreciate our national defense system. i can't imagine not wanting to pay my fair share for these things.

I know fivethirtyeight is becoming more (left-leaning) editorial these days, but this is a pretty good post on the budget:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/breaking-press-corps-incredulous-that.html

I guess my take on it is: 

Obama is keeping most of the tax cuts from Bush.

Obama's tax raises on the wealthy are mostly at or below Clinton levels.  So this "sky is falling oh my god nobody is going to ever buy anything ever again" is, generously putting it, alarmist.

There are other new tax cuts in the budget (like more college tax credits), so this "war on the middle class" is a lame argument as well.

I've seen criticisms that there is no decrease in spending "But major drawdowns in Iraq don't count".  Well, unless we were paying for Iraq with monopoly money, it does count.

I wasn't a member of this forum during most of the Bush Administration, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say there weren't too many tantrums about Bush's spending from the Joe McCarthy fan club here.

Is this budget totally going to fix everything?  No, of course not.  Is it better than relying on trickle-down effects while increasing numbers of americans lack health insurance and those job thingies?  Probably.

I wanted to give Obama a chance, but after 50 some days I believe Obama is drunk with his power and cult of popularity. His wreckless so called stimulus program and budget are a whealth redistribution, pork filled, mistake that does little for job creation, and the universal health and cap and trade taxes are dangerous and done at the worst possible time. 

Some Democrats realize this and have severe buyer's remorse. Here is Jim Cramer, a Democrat Obama supporter's take:

White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President"

NBC's Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President."

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/

hahahahahah

that's all

"I wasn't a member of this forum during most of the Bush Administration, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say there weren't too many tantrums about Bush's spending from the Joe McCarthy fan club here. "

Don't assume anything!! I was more than unhappy about the spending that Bush and the GOP were doing. I am first and foremost a conservative, and only vote Republican because they are the closest to conservatism than Democrats are generally. If there was a Reagan Conservative Party (which is not the current GOP) I'd be voting that way.

"so are you in favor of some kind of reforms that would fix these issues and force companies to pay proper taxes?"

You bet I am. But I don't see either party doing anything like this. I highly highly doubt we'll see any real movement from Obama on these kinds of reforms.

I'm also of the opinion that everyone should pay some sort of income tax, and simplifying the tax code would go a long way in ensuring people are paying what tehy are supposed to be paying and not cheating the system (like all those guys stashing their money in Switzerland so they don't have to pay their fair share). To me, the only fair share is to go to sales tax with companies and the extremely wealthy (1 million plus) paying a yearly income tax.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes - not at all.

Jordan .

My guess, and I think we're already seeing some of this in the first budget, is that Obama is mainly going to shift subsidies from certain industries to others.  Green industries will benefit, and others will not do as well (like coal). This is probably Obama's easiest tool to progressivize the country.

 I actually find the idea of a flat tax rate appealing for a lot of reasons, but I think figuring out what that rate would be is the problem.  I think if you set it low enough to not be too much of a burden on the poor, it would probably be too low to get anything done (assuming you actually want the gov't to do anything).  So you set it higher, then give some credits for good things like mortgage interest payments, IRA contributions, college tuition credits, etc, but a lot of people, especially poor people, wouldn't be able to take advantage (although would help middle class a lot).  Throw in UHC, maybe we are in business.

   Another option could be to keep income tax somewhat progressive, but lower the top rate a lot (say 25%), but treat dividends and investment income as regular income and tax them at the same rate.  Heck, throw in inheritance taxes (which are about 50% for amts > 2mil)- I bet it would still come out to a net increase for the gov't.

or we could just lower taxes and see a huge increase in govt revenue like we saw the past two years. (there's a thread a few pages in on this board that discusses this very thing)

while at the same time lower spending by getting rid of earmarks (like the 9000 in the current budget - 40% of those from the GOP) and other wasteful spending.

Here's an idea - go with a flat rate across the board and do an income tax for the highest 2% and corporations. Of course, I don't think we'll ever go to a flat tax. It's too easy, too simple - and some argue it still wouldn't raise enough money for govt.

IMO, throwing money at banks, constant bail outs, just general throwing money at problems is not going to fix anything - we've seen this for years with our education! It's just one big black hole and we're going to find ourselves and the federal govt will find iself in worst shape in a few more years.

Jordan .

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

Martin Kozlowski

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

NEWSFLASH- Hoover Institute fellow critical of big government.  also- Focus on the Family warns against gay marriage and PETA urges against meat.

You can take the same data he is using in that article, and say

TAX CUTS for 95% of Americans, btwn 3 and 10% increase in Defense spending per year, blah blah blah.

I'll now readily that the economic numbers are changing quickly, and I'll guess that this budget will be modified before it is passed.  Sure would be nice if the republicans would let him have a full stable of economic advisors.

 http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/hoping-he-fails.html

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate’s delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Without Senate confirmation, the two economists are barred from advising the president as the administration tackles the worst financial crisis in 70 years and tries to advance the spending plan Obama submitted to Congress last week.

I don't think these two extra academics being vetted ( after all look at all the administration picks that have been denied because they cheat on their taxes) is  important. Do you?

After all, what is to stop Obama from listening to them or anyone else on the board or not. How can O be banned from seeing these people ?

I think they should drop the $700 bil set aside for universal health, forget the cap and trade tax, cut the pork -that doesn't put people to work -and not a few token wasteful beaurocratic spots, and that goes for Dem and Repub pork projects. These bills are mainly a Lefty Dem's

list of projects -their wish list for the last couple decades and not a job producing true stimulus.

And folks, you do understand that Wall Street-i.e. business, investment, are directly linked to "Main Street" . Yes the rogue douches should be punished, but not all businesses in the process. Obama makes a mistake in cavalierly dismissing stock declines as an unimportant tracking pole. This whealth destruction effects us all.

edit : that should be poll above not pole as in stripper pole.

"And folks, you do understand that Wall Street-i.e. business, investment, are directly linked to "Main Street" "

hopefully people will figure that out soon. Most people don't understand this. And that's due to class warfare that people have used through the years to demonize business owners and investors. 

Even though my company is in real estate, we seem to be doing ok. We're about to hire an intern or two.

However, in our nearest shopping center from where we live, we've lost a Chili's and rumor has it that two or three more restaurants are about to close up shop. Meanwhile, we have a Wal-Mart and a Best Buy and a few other stores coming in. Plus a Schillerbaum! So we're seeing some impact in our area but also growth.

Jordan .

Most of the severe home value depreciation is in four states: California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. In other areas home prices may only be down 12-15 %-still significant but not as bad. Even if your area is doing relatively well, your 401ks are probably cut in half over the last 18 months however. Markets are down 20% just since the inauguration. Something about attacking and killing that goose that lays the golden egg.

I sold my house at the top in Feb 07. I put 80% of my money in FDIC CD ladders using 7 different banks. So, i am OK. If I had gone in fully invested in the market I would be screwed out of my early semi retirement. I work a big 12 weeks a year now for a real estate survey/database company. Not much action in the secondary mortgage market these days.

        *                                *                                   *                            *

Surging U.S. Unemployment Rate Puts Pressure on Obama

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

There are two steps to accomplish that.

Discourage Innovation

First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.

Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted. These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.

A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.

Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so slow to act that even liberal economist and commentator Paul Krugman is criticizing the administration for “dithering.” It has gotten so bad that the Intrade prediction market now has a future on whether Geithner is gone by year’s end. It currently puts the chance of that at about 20 percent.

No More Deferral

On the tax hike, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget quite ominously signaled that he intends to end or significantly amend the U.S. practice of allowing U.S. multinationals to defer U.S. taxes on income that they earn abroad.

Currently, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax on Earth. U.S. firms can compete in Europe by opening a subsidiary in a low-tax country and locating the profits there. Since the high U.S. tax applies only when the money is mailed home, and firms can let the money sit abroad for as long as they want, the big disadvantage of the high rate is muted significantly.

End that deferral opportunity and U.S. firms will no longer be able to compete, given their huge tax disadvantage. With foreign tax rates so low now, it is even possible that the end of deferral could lead to the extinction of the U.S. corporation.

If any firms are to remain, they will be festooned with massive carbon-permit expenses because of Obama’s new cap-and- trade program.

Importing Drugs

Obama’s attack on intellectual property is evident in his aggressive stance against U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the budget. He would force drug companies to pay higher “rebate” fees to Medicaid, and he included wording that suggests Americans will soon be able to import drugs from foreign countries. The stock prices of drug companies, predictably, tanked when his budget plan was released.

Obama will allow cheap and potentially counterfeit substitutes into the country and will set the U.S. price for drugs equal to the lowest price that any foreign government is able to coerce from our drugmakers.

Given this, why would anyone invest money in a risky new cancer trial, or bother inventing some other new thing that the government could expropriate as soon as it decides to?

Finally, Obama has set aside $634 billion to establish a health-reform reserve fund, a major first step in creating a universal health-care system. If you want to have health care for everyone, you have to give it to many people for free. Once we start doing that, we will never stop, at least until the government runs out of money.

It’s clear that President Obama wants the best for our country. That makes it all the more puzzling that he would legislate like a Manchurian Candidate. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=amhpOT5rlR1Y

I am definitely taking this guy's opinion seriously.  Not only is he from the American Enterprise Institute but:

(from wikipidea)

Hassett is coauthor with James K. Glassman, of Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. It was published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst.

 you are an absolute dullard if you listen to one goddam word out of jim cramer's mouth about anything:

just to break this down for you, the DOW returned about +12% from 12/2005 to 12/2006
Cramer's stock pics returned about -0.2%

ps he gives out misinformation so he and his friends can get rich short selling fyi

Who said I follow Cramer's picks? Ask Jordan, i told him not to a couple months ago.

If I'm such a dullard how come I have 80 % of my money in an insured CD ladder since i sold my house at the top ?

I'm a CPA with 20 years in the mortgage business-retired, you don't have to be concerned with me or my million. Thanks for the hot tip on Cramer, Slick, like it's news or something.

 so his views are valid but you dont trust him at all

btw really slick job bragging about your wealth, veyr subtle