Wonder where Obama will get the money...

the_syco

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/general/14209614/?view=Standard

Seems Obama wants to extend the heath care to the nation's 47 million uninsured, improving public education, and to top it all off, reduce the amount of tax for the middle class.


So, he wants to do one thing, that costs money, and then cut tax, which looses money... so I'm confused on where he'll get the tax for the health care, etc, in the first place.


Almost sounds like our government wanting to put in place a cancer thing for the kids, but having to pull it due to lack of funds. I can see Obama headaing the same way.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe he will cut the sacred cow of military spending

Agamemnon

According to here, he plans to raise taxes on wealthier families to cover the costs. Once he reverses the tax cuts Bush gave the richest, he will have more money to play with. According to the same site, Obama also plans to scale back NASA plans to go to Mars and the moon and redirect the money towards education. Any reduction in troop levels in Iraq will save money as well. Of course, in the current uncertain economic climate, things could worsen and these plans might have to change.

Overheal

Executive Order that Scientology is not recognized as a religion

Tax The Hell out of it

Wait two weeks

Profit

Black Swan

Where could Obama get some money? To begin with...

Iraq War Billions: How about the $10 billion per month wasted on the Iraq War? I understand that the new Iraq government has an $89 billion dollar surplus, and one of the greatest oil reserves in the world? Maybe the US could start shifting the responsibility for defense and funding back to them, as they become independent once again?

Oil Corporation Subsidies: Why in the world do the US oil corporations get millions, billions over the years, in subsidies out of tax payers money, especially when they have declared historic profits the last few years?

Tobacco Subsidies: Why are tobacco companies getting subsidies out of tax payers money, when they contribute to one of the major sources of illness in the US?

Bridges to Nowhere? I'm sure that there are many pork barrel "bridges to nowhere" (the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere was between $300 to $400 million), amounting to billions of dollars, that could be eliminated and used to benefit what the American people really need in terms of housing foreclosure relief, medical insurance help, job assistance, and educational grants to students creating a larger pool of future, skilled workers.

JohnMc1

the_syco wrote: »

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/general/14209614/?view=Standard

Seems Obama wants to extend the heath care to the nation's 47 million uninsured, improving public education, and to top it all off, reduce the amount of tax for the middle class.

If he thinks he can actually do all that then he is dooming himself to failure and possibly being a one termer. To fund all of that [How can we forget his "Spread the Wealth" welfare increases] there would have to be tax increases across the board.

Almost sounds like our government wanting to put in place a cancer thing for the kids, but having to pull it due to lack of funds. I can see Obama headaing the same way.

Your government is run by complete idiots. They shown it time and again. The only idiots worse then them are the ones that keep voting them back in time and again.

Agamemnon wrote:

According to here, he plans to raise taxes on wealthier families to cover the costs.

Obama must be buying in bulk at the Hemp shops in Kilkenny if he thinks he going to see extra money from them. The rich can afford high priced lawyers and accountants that can find loopholes so they can claim family vacations as a business expense. They can practically go from owing the government money to the government owing them money.

bonkey

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Obama must be buying in bulk at the Hemp shops in Kilkenny if he thinks he going to see extra money from them. The rich can afford high priced lawyers and accountants that can find loopholes so they can claim family vacations as a business expense. They can practically go from owing the government money to the government owing them money.

This would then beg the question as to why Republicans so often fight for tax breaks for these self-same people.

If they could so easily avoid tax, then there's no point in giving them the breaks, is there?

bonkey

Agamemnon wrote: »

According to the same site, Obama also plans to scale back NASA plans to go to Mars and the moon and redirect the money towards education.

Seems a bit strange. The amount of money that NASA has for such plans is miniscule, not only in terms of the overall federal budget (total NASA allocation is about 0.7%), but even in terms of the Department of Education's budget.

JohnMc1

bonkey wrote: »

This would then beg the question as to why Republicans so often fight for tax breaks for these self-same people.

If they could so easily avoid tax, then there's no point in giving them the breaks, is there?

Tax breaks for them are needed from time to time because the US needs their businesses [and money] stateside. The majority of the wealthy are business owners and their response to a tax hike would be 1) let go of staff [which the country doesn't need atm. More people on unemployment] and raise prices on goods and services or 2) close up shop and move overseas leaving all of their employees without jobs. And as I said previously the country does not need more people on unemployment at the moment.

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is a nice fairy tale [Robin Hood] but it in reality its nothing more than a Communist/Socialist pipe dream.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Tax breaks for them are needed from time to time because the US needs their businesses [and money] stateside.

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is a nice fairy tale [Robin Hood] but it in reality its nothing more than a Communist/Socialist pipe dream.

The price of failure? $47 million golden parachute for rich executive Sullivan who failed to perform his job as CEO. Yes, people like him need tax breaks to ensure that they don't suffer from their poor management and incompetence, while 47 million of his fellow Americans cannot afford basic health insurance?

"American International Group will give outgoing CEO Martin J. Sullivan a severance packaged valued at $47 million. Sullivan’s resignation took effect July 1, according to a Reuters report.

Sullivan will receive severance of $15 million and a bonus of $4 million for the portion of the year he worked. He will also maintain outstanding equity and long-term cash awards valued at approximately $28 million, according to the regulatory filing.

Sullivan resigned after AIG wrote down $20 billion in losses on the market value of assets linked to subprime mortgages."

Source: http://www.directorship.com/sullivan-to-receive--47m

And the poor rich executive survivors needed therapy after the AIG meltdown too. Thanks to the taxpayer bailout they got it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/politicians.meltdown.aig.ap/

JohnMc1

There's a differance between a tax break and a bailout. Even an idiot would know that. Good try at trolling though.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There's a differance between a tax break and a bailout. Even an idiot would know that. Good try at trolling though.

Your comment was rude and malicious, serving no interest in advancing the content of the discussion. Attacking the person, rather than the issue discussed was not tolerated by the charter of this forum, if I read it correctly?

The original title of this thread was "I wonder where Obama will get the money...?" to pay for "heath care to the nation's 47 million uninsured, improving public education..."

One major source of money would be to closely examine and regulate how the billions of dollars of bailout monies are spent, to avoid the waste of taxpayers monies as exhibited by the extraordinary AIG failed executive compensation plan and the recent California retreat by AIG executives. AIG is not an exception in these wasteful practices by corporate America that depends on bailout monies drawn from the taxpayer, just one example.

The total billions of bailout monies allocated recently by Congress are not required to be completely spent, but can be reallocated by Congress for other domestic needs if not exhausted, including for solutions to help medically uninsured Americans, or for the advancement of their education. That may be one of serveral possible sources of money to answer the thread title: "I wonder where Obama will get the money?"

If the billions of dollars used to bailout failed corporations, due to incompetent management (or criminal, as in the case of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan by Chairman Charles H. Keating, Jr., John McCain's former friend) could be reduced, perhaps tax cuts resulting from the reduction of this type of waste would be justified, which may or may not stimulate the economy, depending upon your perspective?

JohnMc1

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Your comment was rude and malicious, [/QUOTE

If you can't tell the difference then that's your problem. You brought up something that wasn't even part of the discussion. Tough luck that you were shot down.

The question was how Obama was going to do all these things while cutting taxes. I answered he can't.To support those programs taxes would have to be increased. You wanted to flame bait and brought up the bailout which is completely different than taxes.

Otacon

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference then that's your problem. You brought up something that wasn't even part of the discussion. Tough luck that you were shot down.

The question was how Obama was going to do all these things while cutting taxes. I answered he can't.To support those programs taxes would have to be increased. You wanted to flame bait and brought up the bailout which is completely different than taxes.

Where does Blue Lagoon equate a tax break to a bail-out?

Also, why can't new programs be paid for by cutting spending from other less-efficient programs, as Obama has said he would do?

JohnMc1

Otacon wrote: »

Where does Blue Lagoon equate a tax break to a bail-out?

Here's his yapping about the bailout that you missed.

The price of failure? $47 million golden parachute for rich executive Sullivan who failed to perform his job as CEO. Yes, people like him need tax breaks to ensure that they don't suffer from their poor management and incompetence, while 47 million of his fellow Americans cannot afford basic health insurance?

"American International Group will give outgoing CEO Martin J. Sullivan a severance packaged valued at $47 million. Sullivan’s resignation took effect July 1, according to a Reuters report.

Sullivan will receive severance of $15 million and a bonus of $4 million for the portion of the year he worked. He will also maintain outstanding equity and long-term cash awards valued at approximately $28 million, according to the regulatory filing.

Sullivan resigned after AIG wrote down $20 billion in losses on the market value of assets linked to subprime mortgages."

Source: http://www.directorship.com/sullivan-to-receive--47m

And the poor rich executive survivors needed therapy after the AIG meltdown too. Thanks to the taxpayer bailout they got it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ltdown.aig.ap/

Also, why can't new programs be paid for by cutting spending from other less-efficient programs, as Obama has said he would do?

Cutting from one program to giver to another is a very sighted solution to an often long term problem [epsecially in this economic turmoil] to pay for these programs long term taxes will have to increase.

Ludo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Here's his yapping about the bailout that you missed.

What a lovely attitude you display throughout this thread. Get some manners.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Cutting from one program to giver to another is a very sighted solution to an often long term problem [epsecially in this economic turmoil] to pay for these programs long term taxes will have to increase.

So by this odd logic any program in existence should never have it's budget cut. That in itself will result in either tax increases to fund new government initiatives or stop all future initiatives.
Nothing wrong with taking money from useless programs to fund new ones when they deserve it.

Otacon

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Here's his yapping about the bailout that you missed.

Wow, now I can see that rudeness B_L was on about. Again, where does B_L equate that to a tax break. I believe that point B_L was making that you didn't see, was that the bailout is taxpayers money, that is being invested in companies, so that when they get back on their feet, the taxpayer gets a return.

The 'Golden Parachute' is an example of how this bailout is being treated, and better rules should be put in place to stop this.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Cutting from one program to giver to another is a very sighted solution to an often long term problem [epsecially in this economic turmoil] to pay for these programs long term taxes will have to increase.

Which is why Obama is increasing the taxes of the people who can afford it. He knows not all the money can come from other programs.

JohnMc1

Ludo wrote: »

What a lovely attitude you display throughout this thread. Get some manners.

Might want to look up yapping in a dictionary before telling people they need manners.

So by this odd logic any program in existence should never have it's budget cut. That in itself will result in either tax increases to fund new government initiatives or stop all future initiatives.
Nothing wrong with taking money from useless programs to fund new ones when they deserve it.

As I said budget cuts are a short sighted solution. Most people say the military budget should be cut. Whether or not people were for the wars or against it is irrelevant atm. Cutting budget to the military will leave the soldiers already there short on supplies [food, ammo,etc] and no reinforcements. Basically they'll be sitting ducks. Anybody with common sense can see that's a disaster waitng to happen. Plus what if there is another terrorist attack on US soil again. What are we going to do? Do what the aging Hollywood hippies say and fight them with hugs and kisses?

Ludo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Might want to look up yapping in a dictionary before telling people they need manners.

:rolleyes:

So, how should Obama (or McCain if he had won the election) pay for any initiatives he wishes to get going?
Raising taxes is out for you. Taking from other programs is short sighted (although you only seem bothered about defense which I never mentioned).

Care to offer a solution on how to improve public education, for example, instead of just saying nothing can be done?

JohnMc1

Ludo wrote: »

So, how should Obama (or McCain if he had won the election) pay for any initiatives he wishes to get going?
Raising taxes is out for you. Taking from other programs is short sighted (although you only seem bothered about defense which I never mentioned).

Care to offer a solution on how to improve public education, for example, instead of just saying nothing can be done?

I used miltary as an example because thats what alot of people want to see get cut. Without an across the board tax increase nothing can be funded long term. Its like the old analogy of Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The change would be you're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul but the major problem is Peter has to be paid back at some point.

Otacon

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I used miltary as an example because thats what alot of people want to see get cut. Without an across the board tax increase nothing can be funded long term. Its like the old analogy of Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The change would be you're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul but the major problem is Peter has to be paid back at some point.

Not if Peter is an inefficent waste of money and you want him to die. As stated already, taxes will be increased to pay for some of these programs but only for those who can afford it.

As for big business, though they will be getting taxed what they should be paying already, incentives will be made for those who keep and offer jobs in America.

JohnMc1

Otacon wrote: »

Not if Peter is an inefficent waste of money and you want him to die. As stated already, taxes will be increased to pay for some of these programs but only for those who can afford it.

As for big business, though they will be getting taxed what they should be paying already, incentives will be made for those who keep and offer jobs in America.

If there was any project or whatever that deserved to be killed or having funding cut it would of been done by now.

The problem with the Democrats is they tend to go overboard with the taxation. They've been labeled The Tax and spend Liberals for years for a reason.Taxes for Americans are going to go up regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

Otacon

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If there was any project or whatever that deserved to be killed or having funding cut it would of been done by now.

The problem with the Democrats is they tend to go overboard with the taxation. They've been labeled The Tax and spend Liberals for years for a reason.Taxes for Americans are going to go up regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

So you are saying Obama is going to go back on his promises with regards his tax plan? Any source for this or is it your opinion?

Also, if there are no programs and such left to get rid of, what was all McCain's talk about getting rid of 'pork-barrel' spending?

JohnMc1

Otacon wrote: »

So you are saying Obama is going to go back on his promises with regards his tax plan? Any source for this or is it your opinion?

Can you really see any of those promises going through in this current economic environment? He practically admitted in his acceptance speech he might not be able to establish any of that until his second term if he is reelected. He is being briefed by the current administration in regards to everything [the economy, War on Terror,etc] so more than likely he'll have to forego any of "Spreading the Wealth" policies that would involve a tax hike.

Also, if there are no programs and such left to get rid of, what was all McCain's talk about getting rid of 'pork-barrel' spending?

Pork barrel was what was referred to all the breaks Pelosi gave certain industries in the Bailout Proposal [Wooden arrow makers. WTF?] Pelosi, Reid and co turned a 3 page document into a 400 page one [And they say only Reps are for big businesses]

Black Swan

the_syco wrote: »

Seems Obama wants to extend the heath care to the nation's 47 million uninsured, improving public education, and to top it all off, reduce the amount of tax for the middle class.

Obama is proposing an economic plan that includes more than just providing for the 47 million medically uninsured, improving public education, and tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000, therefore, if you only look at these things in isolation, and not within an overall plan, it does not appear feasible. This plan includes obtaining additional monies from:

• Increasing taxation for corporations and individuals earning $250,000 or more, as well as closing loopholes that are used to avoid taxation.
• Evaluating and eliminating programmes that don't work, thereby saving billions in tax monies that are now wasted (This was what Obama meant when he used the "scalpel" metaphor during the debates).
• Eliminating billion dollar subsidies that are corporate giveaways (e.g., medical insurance company subsidies mentioned in the debates, plus tobacco subsidies, oil corporations subsidies, etc.)
• Ensuring that the bailout funds recently allocated by Congress are spent wisely, and not wasted on failed executive golden parachutes or posh executive retreats (i.e., AIG, etc.), for example. And if all the allocated funds for bailout have not been exhausted as a result of efficient and effective fiscal management, then those funds not used in the bailout can be reallocated by Congress to domestic programmes rather than wasted.
• Gradually withdrawing from the $10 billion month Iraq War, allowing for such monies to be reallocated to domestic spending in the future.
• Other sources of funding within his economic plan that have not been made public, or are in the developmental stages by his economic transition team (which is just forming since being elected president only 8 days ago).

That's why the below 3 comments are consistent with the larger economic plan that will be a part of the solution to this thread's title: "Wonder where Obama will get the money."

Otacon wrote: »

Also, why can't new programs be paid for by cutting spending from other less-efficient programs, as Obama has said he would do?

Ludo wrote: »

Nothing wrong with taking money from useless programs to fund new ones when they deserve it.

"We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better." Obama, 3rd Presidential Debate.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The question was how Obama was going to do all these things while cutting taxes. I answered he can't.To support those programs taxes would have to be increased. You wanted to flame bait and brought up the bailout which is completely different than taxes.

Only because you were looking at three things in isolation, and not within an overall economic plan.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/third-presidential-debate.html

the_syco

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Gradually withdrawing from the $10 billion month Iraq War, allowing for such monies to be reallocated to domestic spending in the future.

I loled. The withdrawing has happened before he got into office. They'll be out of Iraq by mid 2009, and into Afgan soon after.

JohnMc1

the_syco wrote: »

I loled. The withdrawing has happened before he got into office. They'll be out of Iraq by mid 2009, and into Afgan soon after.

The soldiers would probably have begun withdrawing from Iraq sometime next year anyway regardless of if Obama or McCain had won. They only have 5 provinces left to sign over to the Iraqi Government [My sister has a friend who's son is serving in Iraq and is stationed in one of the provinces scheduled to be turned over]

The Mad Hatter

the_syco wrote: »

I loled. The withdrawing has happened before he got into office. They'll be out of Iraq by mid 2009, and into Afgan soon after.

So why are you asking where the money will come from?