• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

obama's flexibility on sequester cuts

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Sequester Revelation
Obama has the legal power to avoid spending-cut damage.

Programs, projects and activities are a technical category of the federal budget, but the sequester actually occurs at the roughly 1,200 broader units known as budget accounts. Some accounts are small, but others contain hundreds of PPAs and the larger accounts run to billions of dollars. For the Pentagon in particular, the distinction between PPAs and accounts is huge. This means in most cases the President has the room to protect his "investments" while managing the fiscal transition over time.

Congress might have intended for the sequester to apply to PPAs, but they also wrote a sloppy law at the 11th hour. The Budget Control Act of 2011 disinterred the lapsed sequester rules of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Control Act of 1985, though without anyone looking at the details.

Gramm-Rudman said the sequester applies to accounts, not PPAs, under a temporary "part-year" budget. As it happens the government is operating under just such a continuing resolution now, not a normal appropriations bill. If Congress returned to regular order in 2014 or later, the sequester would indeed trickle down to PPAs.

The White House has even more discretion than this. When Gramm-Rudman led to a 4.3% sequester in 1986, Congress passed a special bill that created the category of PPAs and spent 1,119 pages defining what they were for 1986. Congress has never done anything of the sort since, and thus as the government has grown PPA definitions now vary[.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328211144987052.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
The Sequester Revelation
Obama has the legal power to avoid spending-cut damage.

Programs, projects and activities are a technical category of the federal budget, but the sequester actually occurs at the roughly 1,200 broader units known as budget accounts. Some accounts are small, but others contain hundreds of PPAs and the larger accounts run to billions of dollars. For the Pentagon in particular, the distinction between PPAs and accounts is huge. This means in most cases the President has the room to protect his "investments" while managing the fiscal transition over time.

Congress might have intended for the sequester to apply to PPAs, but they also wrote a sloppy law at the 11th hour. The Budget Control Act of 2011 disinterred the lapsed sequester rules of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Control Act of 1985, though without anyone looking at the details.

Gramm-Rudman said the sequester applies to accounts, not PPAs, under a temporary "part-year" budget. As it happens the government is operating under just such a continuing resolution now, not a normal appropriations bill. If Congress returned to regular order in 2014 or later, the sequester would indeed trickle down to PPAs.

The White House has even more discretion than this. When Gramm-Rudman led to a 4.3% sequester in 1986, Congress passed a special bill that created the category of PPAs and spent 1,119 pages defining what they were for 1986. Congress has never done anything of the sort since, and thus as the government has grown PPA definitions now vary[.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328211144987052.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

So Senator Coburn is either lying or don't know sh*t from shinola then- eh :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
The Sequester Revelation
Obama has the legal power to avoid spending-cut damage.

Programs, projects and activities are a technical category of the federal budget, but the sequester actually occurs at the roughly 1,200 broader units known as budget accounts. Some accounts are small, but others contain hundreds of PPAs and the larger accounts run to billions of dollars. For the Pentagon in particular, the distinction between PPAs and accounts is huge. This means in most cases the President has the room to protect his "investments" while managing the fiscal transition over time.

Congress might have intended for the sequester to apply to PPAs, but they also wrote a sloppy law at the 11th hour. The Budget Control Act of 2011 disinterred the lapsed sequester rules of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Control Act of 1985, though without anyone looking at the details.

Gramm-Rudman said the sequester applies to accounts, not PPAs, under a temporary "part-year" budget. As it happens the government is operating under just such a continuing resolution now, not a normal appropriations bill. If Congress returned to regular order in 2014 or later, the sequester would indeed trickle down to PPAs.

The White House has even more discretion than this. When Gramm-Rudman led to a 4.3% sequester in 1986, Congress passed a special bill that created the category of PPAs and spent 1,119 pages defining what they were for 1986. Congress has never done anything of the sort since, and thus as the government has grown PPA definitions now vary[.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328211144987052.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

So Senator Coburn is either lying or don't know sh*t from shinola then- eh :???:


Ask yourself why Republicans want to give obama, MORE flexibility and Democrats don't.

You're the type of low information voter that allows for the partisanship, you like to criticize...but only when it affects the control of your chosen "cult"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328211144987052.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

So Senator Coburn is either lying or don't know sh*t from shinola then- eh :???:


Ask yourself why Republicans want to give obama, MORE flexibility and Democrats don't.

You're the type of low information voter that allows for the partisanship, you like to criticize...but only when it affects the control of your chosen "cult"

So you are saying the Republicans are still playing partisan politics- and putting that over whats best for all the country :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
So Senator Coburn is either lying or don't know sh*t from shinola then- eh :???:


Ask yourself why Republicans want to give obama, MORE flexibility and Democrats don't.

You're the type of low information voter that allows for the partisanship, you like to criticize...but only when it affects the control of your chosen "cult"

So you are saying the Republicans are still playing partisan politics- and putting that over whats best for all the country :???:


What is better for the Country, more flexibility, or the status quo?

If you answer "more flexibility", then it is the Democrats, that are against what is best for the Country.

It appears that you have already decided that more flexibility, for the President, would be a good thing, so you must have also decided that it is the Dems. who are playing partisan politics and are against what is best for the Country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Ask yourself why Republicans want to give obama, MORE flexibility and Democrats don't.

You're the type of low information voter that allows for the partisanship, you like to criticize...but only when it affects the control of your chosen "cult"

So you are saying the Republicans are still playing partisan politics- and putting that over whats best for all the country :???:


What is better for the Country, more flexibility, or the status quo?

If you answer "more flexibility", then it is the Democrats, that are against what is best for the Country.

It appears that you have already decided that more flexibility, for the President, would be a good thing, so you must have also decided that it is the Dems. who are playing partisan politics and are against what is best for the Country.

The best is a true debt reduction bill- cutting unnecessary and waste items (like farm subsidy payments) and especially in changing some of the entitlements-- while also adding additional income ... The true way to attack the nations spending and debt...
But in order to do that- ALL must compromise- and not just say NO...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
So you are saying the Republicans are still playing partisan politics- and putting that over whats best for all the country :???:


What is better for the Country, more flexibility, or the status quo?

If you answer "more flexibility", then it is the Democrats, that are against what is best for the Country.

It appears that you have already decided that more flexibility, for the President, would be a good thing, so you must have also decided that it is the Dems. who are playing partisan politics and are against what is best for the Country.

The best is a true debt reduction bill- cutting unnecessary and waste items (like farm subsidy payments) and especially in changing some of the entitlements-- while also adding additional income ... The true way to attack the nations spending and debt...
But in order to do that- ALL must compromise- and not just say NO...


Increasing revenue would mean cutting taxes and increasing the tax base. why are the Democrats not willing to compromise on this?
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
So you are saying the Republicans are still playing partisan politics- and putting that over whats best for all the country :???:


What is better for the Country, more flexibility, or the status quo?

If you answer "more flexibility", then it is the Democrats, that are against what is best for the Country.

It appears that you have already decided that more flexibility, for the President, would be a good thing, so you must have also decided that it is the Dems. who are playing partisan politics and are against what is best for the Country.

The best is a true debt reduction bill- cutting unnecessary and waste items (like farm subsidy payments) and especially in changing some of the entitlements-- while also adding additional income ... The true way to attack the nations spending and debt...
But in order to do that- ALL must compromise- and not just say NO...

Oltimer, do you own a farm ? Have you ever received a government subsidy ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
What is better for the Country, more flexibility, or the status quo?

If you answer "more flexibility", then it is the Democrats, that are against what is best for the Country.

It appears that you have already decided that more flexibility, for the President, would be a good thing, so you must have also decided that it is the Dems. who are playing partisan politics and are against what is best for the Country.

The best is a true debt reduction bill- cutting unnecessary and waste items (like farm subsidy payments) and especially in changing some of the entitlements-- while also adding additional income ... The true way to attack the nations spending and debt...
But in order to do that- ALL must compromise- and not just say NO...


Increasing revenue would mean cutting taxes and increasing the tax base. why are the Democrats not willing to compromise on this?

It appears to me that one of the main issues Dems want is increased revenue by closing the loopholes in millionaires taxes-- Repubs want spending cuts especially amongst entitlements... To me they probably should do both- that is COMPROMISE.
We wouldn't be in this huge debt situation if GW hadn't went against his Treasury Secretaries advice and cut taxes while fighting 2 wars- with no other income sources...

During WWI- the top income tax rate was 70+%-- and the country came back and went directly into the booming period of the roaring twenties....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It appears to me that one of the main issues Dems want is increased revenue by closing the loopholes in millionaires taxes-- Repubs want spending cuts especially amongst entitlements... To me they probably should do both- that is COMPROMISE.
We wouldn't be in this huge debt situation if GW hadn't went against his Treasury Secretaries advice and cut taxes while fighting 2 wars- with no other income sources...

During WWI- the top income tax rate was 70+%-- and the country came back and went directly into the booming period of the roaring twenties....


the Republicans proposed a $2.2 trillion package, including $1.2 trillion sliced from federal spending, with half of those savings coming directly from Medicare.

They offered $800 billion in tax increases through "pro-growth tax reform" that lowers tax rates but boosts income by closing loopholes and special deductions for companies and households.


More than three in four Americans will pay higher taxes for 2013, thanks to the fiscal cliff deal passed in Congress on New Year's Day.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/03/news/economy/fiscal-cliff-taxes/index.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Remind me again how well the Bush tax cuts worked .....

We ended up with the Bush Bust....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Remind me again how well the Bush tax cuts worked .....

We ended up with the Bush Bust....

The Bush Tax cuts got us out of the Recession that Bush inherited from Clinton;

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

President Clinton raised tax rates right after taking office in 1993, and presided over a massive "stealth tax hike" which ultimately hurt the economy. Because income taxes were not indexed, the increase in real incomes during the 1990s pushed people into higher and higher tax brackets. According to Brian Wesbury of GKST Economics in Chicago, from 1993 to 2000, the number of people who paid taxes in one of the top three income-tax brackets almost doubled from 3.4 million to 6.4 million filers. Further, total income taxes paid by these filers increased from $84.6 billion in 1993 to $245.8 billion, an increase of 190.5 percent. President Clinton's policies increased the federal tax burden as a share of our national economy from 17.5 percent in 1992 to 20.9 percent in 2000. President Bush, however, took the opposite approach of his predecessor. Upon taking office, George W. Bush took immediate action to lift the tax burden and strengthen the economy. The first Bush tax cut put $40 billion immediately back into the economy in mid-2001 and helped cushion the economic fallout from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In March 2002, the president signed a second tax cut that allowed partial expensing, which began the recovery in business-investment spending. In May 2003, Bush signed the third tax cut of his administration, boosting after-tax economic incentives by slashing tax rates on income, capital gains, and dividends. Largely as a result of the president's tax-rate cuts, the recovery has moved into higher gear.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Remind me again how well the Bush tax cuts worked .....

We ended up with the Bush Bust....

your ability to connect unrelated dots is awe-inspiring..

the tax cuts did not lead to a housing boom/bust... it was the free easy credit from the liberals inability to see the consequences of their agenda..



During WWI- the top income tax rate was 70+%-- and the country came back and went directly into the booming period of the roaring twenties....

and how did that end? :lol: :p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Remind me again how well the Bush tax cuts worked .....

We ended up with the Bush Bust....

your ability to connect unrelated dots is awe-inspiring..

the tax cuts did not lead to a housing boom/bust... it was the free easy credit from the liberals inability to see the consequences of their agenda..



During WWI- the top income tax rate was 70+%-- and the country came back and went directly into the booming period of the roaring twenties....

and how did that end? :lol: :p

A boom for about 10 years...
Went good until Silent Cal cut taxes to almost nothing-and all oversight--- then 8 months into Hoovers term we had the stock market Crash of 1929 that lead us into the great depression.
Relativity- I don't know but it is ironic that history repeated itself with GW's cuts and lack of government oversight......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Just like the bust in 29, the downturn in 2008 is credited to Fed actions. "Get creative" with mortgages said Greenspan. And they did............

For the most part, economists now know that the stock market did not cause the 1929 crash. It was itself a symptom of wildly erratic shifts in the nation's money supply. The Federal Reserve System was the primary culprit, having stimulated a boom with dirt-cheap interest rates and easy money in the early ' 20s. By 1929, the central bank had jacked up rates so high that it choked off the boom and forced a reduction in the money supply by one-third between 1929 and 1933.

In 1930, Congress took a recession and turned it into a Great Depression. It raised tariffs so high they virtually closed the borders to imports and exports. It doubled income tax rates in 1932. Franklin Roosevelt, who campaigned on a platform of less government, actually gave America much more. His "New Deal" raised taxes (he once proposed a 99.5 percent tax rate on incomes over $100,000), punished investment and smothered business with rules and red tape.
 

Steve

Well-known member
advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes

created an antitrust division in the Justice Department

proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (not enacted);

chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and home-ownership;

Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam)

in addition to the Revenue Act of 1932 Hoover agreed to roll back several tax cuts that his Administration had enacted on upper incomes. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's economy) on all bank checks.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt

In fact, economist Murray Rothbard argues that, quite contrary to mainstream historical opinion, Hoover was actually the initiator of what came to be the New Deal. Hoover engaged in many unprecedented public works programs, including an increase in the Federal Buildings program of over $400 million and the establishment of the Division of Public Construction to spur public works planning. Hoover himself granted more subsidies to ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board and asked for a further $175 million appropriation for public works; this was followed in July 1930 with the expenditure of a giant $915 million public works program, including a Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.[105][106] In the spring of 1930, Hoover acquired from Congress an added $100 million to continue the Federal Farm Board's lending and purchasing policies.

and in one of those,.. how little things have changed...

President Hoover had become convinced that the Democrats deliberately were destroying the economy of the country and erecting roadblocks against every measure he offered to the Congress to restore balance to the economy ... all for the purpose of winning an election.

by most factual accounts hoover was pretty liberal....

On poverty, Hoover said that "Given the chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation",
 

Steve

Well-known member
Hoover's Tax Cut

When it comes to taxes, Hoover is best remembered for the Revenue Act of 1932, the largest -- and most poorly timed -- peacetime tax increase in American history.

oopps,.. it wasn't a tax cut..

Obama Falsely Claims Herbert Hoover Cut Taxes and Reduced Spending

Earlier in his life, Barack Obama worked as a lecturer on Constitutional law. Let’s hope he bothered to learn it first before lecturing, because he’s not quite so picky about research these days. He tried lecturing on economics and Herbert Hoover during his visit to Asia Hawaii last week:

Obama is dead wrong. Data from the White House’s own website shows that Hoover increased, rather than cut, spending in the Great Depression, and ran up deficits that were huge by historical standards.

Herbert Hoover increased marginal tax rates on the wealthy to 63 percent, and more than doubled government spending as a percentage of the economy. But in his political speeches, President Obama continues to falsely claim that Hoover gave “tax cuts” to the rich and slashed the government to promote “trickle-down economics.”

In fact, Hoover’s spending policies look a lot like Obama’s. Maybe that’s why we’re seeing a big resurgence of Hoovervilles Obamavilles these days.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Remind me again how well the Bush tax cuts worked .....

We ended up with the Bush Bust....



It was the Democrat spending that gave you the "Bush Bust", not the tax cuts. Revenue increased, as did spending.


Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10]
 
Top