Watch Obama Renews Push for Buffett Rule on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
Listen to this NPR story about how Mitt Romney has embraced the "Paul Ryan budget." The Paul Ryan budget - named after the Wisconsin Republican Congressman who is credited as the chief author and introduced it to Congress - characterizes current conservative fiscal thinking. In short, it calls for significant cuts to spending while maintaining current tax cuts and extending new tax cuts.
The Obama budget, which characterizes liberal fiscal thinking, calls for a new tax on the super rich - the so-called "Buffett Rule," named after Warren Buffett, the billionaire who has suggested taxing the super rich at higher rates - while cutting less from domestic spending.
After you have an understanding of the practical and ideological differences between the Obama and Romney (Ryan) budget, write a reflection on (1) which budget is a better solution to the current fiscal situation, and (2) how these contrasting budgets will play a role in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Consider some of the following in your response;
- Which budget do you think will be more popular among independents and "swing voters?"
- How do these budgets reflect the ideology of their proponents?
- Where do you see the greatest strengths in each of these budgets (fiscally and politically)?
- Where do you see the greatest weaknesses of each of these budgets?
- Do you see any compromise here? Do either of these plans deal with entitlements and mandatory spending? Which plan is better?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Ryan budget would be the better solution. Obama’s plan would not bring in enough money to make any significant difference, especially with all the billions of increased spending. It’s obvious that something has to be done to balance the budget, and it’s not going to be easy. I think Ryan’s plan is bold enough to be effective, and, although it requires some significant cuts, it would help keep Socially Security and Medicare from crashing and be more sustainable for the future.
ReplyDeleteThe deficit will definitely be a presidential campaign issue. Many Obama supporters include those who are unemployed, have low income, or are on welfare. These people tend to see the rich as greedy cheaters, and they believe people with lots of money should have to give it up to be fair. They will be in full support of making the wealthy pay more. Most other liberals favor taking money from the rich to give to the poor. Conservatives believe that the people with more money help keep this country going. They are able to invest and spend more and, therefore, put more back into the economy and help provide jobs through creating businesses. I believe a majority of independents will favor the Ryan budget because Obama’s plan is about increasing taxes, something that does not sound very appealing, and it will do virtually nothing to curb his enormous spending proposals. Obama’s plan will only put more money into the Democrats’ hands to give away, and most people don’t like the thought of working hard and becoming successful just so the government can take away their money.
The Obama budget really does not have any fiscal advantages. Its political advantage is that it will make Democrats happy by giving them more to spend on social welfare programs. The Ryan budget is the closest plan we have to finally fixing the budget, and it could possibly save programs like Social Security and Medicare for the future. The greatest weakness of Obama’s plan is that it raises taxes without helping fix the budget, and the greatest weakness of the Ryan plan is that it requires significant cuts in some areas.
Which is better...let's look at this on a smaller scale. Picture your own bank account and let's say you owe money. You have two options: make more money or spend less than you are making. Obama wants to make more money by taxing the rich and Romney wants to spend less. By taxing the rich we could make a lot of money but not enough to fix the debt. By cutting domestic spending we could save a lot of money as well but again, not enough to fix the debt. The problem is that the republicans and the democrats won't compromise. In order to correct the problem though however, we are going to need to go after all of them. We need to tax, cut, go after social security, medicare, military, etc. If the boat is sinking you can't just plug one hole. You are still going to sink. You need to plug all of the holes. So lets look at the swing voters. They have the choice of having the rich pay a little more or giving the poor even less. People are obviously more comfortable with having the rich pay a little more. I think the independent voters will lean more toward Obama's budget. People don't like the idea of sacrificing and doing some hard things. These budgets very obviously reflect ideology and you can see how no one wants to compromise. Democrats are attacking the rich(most of which are republicans) saying that they don't pay enough so the democrats want to tax the rich. Many republicans believe in the trickle down effect(if the rich don't have to pay high taxes, they can have money to grow their business and then hire people and the benefits will trickle down to the poor.) The republicans think we spend too much money and therefore want to cut domestic spending and lower the rates. So which is better...neither is better than the other. Both will get back some money but one without the other won't get us enough money. There needs to be compromise and more risk in order to fix the debt. If politicians are going to focus on reelection and ideology, then we won't get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteIn comparing the Obama plan and the Romney plan, it’s clear that neither is going to fix the current financial solution. The United States has a debt of trillions of dollars, and shifting a tax burden for a few years or cutting federal spending until a new budget is passed is not going to change that fact. Because of the nature of American politics, no budget plan will remain in effect for more than, at most, a few years. Power in the United States is always changing hands, and spending and saving change with it. It is possible that if both plans were highly developed and applied over a significant period of time, each could decrease the size of the deficit. However, neither is going to be administered in such a way, so Americans should focus on other merits of these plans to determine which is better for the country at this time.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, the Romney budget will cut federal spending, which is something that many people agree needs to happen. However,the spending cuts may be more harmful to the general American population than they are helpful to the American economy. For instance, the Romney budget will cut student loan and job-training programs that many students in our area and the rest of the nation depend on. People from the fiscal demographics who value such programs will also find that the Romney budget eliminates tax breaks for them. What’s more, with tax cuts for the wealthy, the change in the amount of spending may not be enough to better the government’s skewed balance between spending and gaining money. Despite the imperfections of this plan, I believe it will appear attractive to deficit-sensitive independent voters who believe that tax and spending cuts will help the economy in the future. This budget clearly reflects the pro-business, pro-high income, and pro-small government stands of the conservative base.
The Obama plan does not introduce great cuts in spending but rather includes a raise in taxes for the rich. Many hold that taking money from the rich will take money from the economy, but it is important to note that the rich will still be rich. They will still spend, invest, and save nearly as much as they would if they were not taxed as heavily. Though the Obama plan proposes reforms for entitlements and welfare, it does not propose cuts that will greatly affect the lives of people who depend on government assistance. The pro-welfare stance of this budget reflects a strong liberal ideology.
Though neither plan is fully developed or fleshed-out, I believe the Obama plan is the better one for the moment. Neither plan will fix the deficit, but the Obama plan will keep money in the American economy and continue programs that many Americans depend on. In short, the imperfections of both plans are many, but many Americans need government programs. Dramatic cuts in these programs could have a very negative effect on many aspects of American life, including education, health care, and as a result, the economy as a whole. Ideally, someone will eventually be able to successfully reform entitlement programs and the tax system to form a plan that can last long enough to decrease the national debt.
After listening to both plans, it's obvious that our country has too much of a deficit to completely fix it. Both the Obama plan and the Ryan budget have ups and downs that can be used to benefit our country; if a compromise could be made. However, that just won't happen between the republicans and democrats are fighting about a very politically charged argument. Since this won't happen, though, I would agree more with the Obama plan.
ReplyDeleteAmong the independent voters, I think they would also lean more in favor of the Obama plan. Most average American's hate paying taxes, and think that the rich get all of the benefits, and as stated in the video, the top 400 wealthiest people pay lower taxes, or at the same rate as most middle class Americans. Knowing that, most people would want the rich to help cover some of the debt. All middle class American's want to be rich, but while they aren't, they believe that the rich should be the ones to step up and pay more in taxes.
Ideologically, these plans reflect the two parties quite a bit. The Obama plan attacks the rich by making them pay more. By doing this, the government is able to keep spending on different programs because they will be getting the money from the taxes. The republican plan wants to cut spending (reducing government) and keep money with the wealthy who are the ones investing in the economy.
The Obama budget does keep the "fairness" of the tax bracket in check, and by receiving more taxes, they can keep the spending in different government programs that most American's use everyday. However, just by raising the tax percent of the wealthy won't bring in enough money to make a huge dent in the deficit. The plan isn't big enough, as they mentioned in the video.
The Ryan Plan allows for people to keep lower taxes and will cut out of government spending. However, that will cut from different governmental programs that the American people need.
Unfortunately, there won't be a compromise between the two parties because of the high political stakes behind the plans. This being an election year, it was a good time for Obama to start advocating this plan, because it does sound good, and attacks Romney who makes a lot of money. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with a plan to help make the debt a bit smaller.
I think that the Obama budget is a better solution because the super rich have the money with which to pay taxes. With the Romney budget, cuts to spending may help the economy somewhat, but extending new tax cuts will certainly not help to reduce the national debt. Neither plan will solve the economic situation, but the Obama plan will be more effective. Also, most people will not be supportive of getting programs cut, especially when many depend on the government’s financial assistance. Of course, it would be best to combine both budgets and cut spending along with taxes, since it will not be easy to significantly reduce the national debt with just one plan. However, this sort of compromise does not seem likely to occur anytime soon. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney and Obama will each have to persuade voters that his plan is better by offering either tax cuts or fewer cuts from domestic spending. Independents are more likely to favor the Obama budget because they will favor the rich paying higher taxes rather than having the government cut programs. Because most people are not millionaires, voters think that they will not be affected by higher tax rates for the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama plan clearly reflects a liberal ideology, and is likely to be supported by Democrats. Since many Democrats are represented by lower-income voters, they will favor this budget, which suggests that the government should impose taxes of at least 30% on those earning $1 million or more. The greatest weakness with this plan is that the national debt is not going to disappear just because the government raises taxes on the rich. Also, the money from the higher taxes will not mean anything if the government chooses to increase spending on programs. The Romney budget plan will be supported by Republicans, as it reflects the conservative view of the need to keep tax cuts. Republicans, who represent the investors of the country, believe that the real solution to the national debt is cutting federal spending. However, the great weakness with this budget is that in order for it to be effective, there must be dramatic cuts in spending, which should be maintained for several years. Also, this budget will not help if it calls for extending additional tax cuts. Both the Obama and Romney plans will not truly work unless they are combined, but as a compromise is not being offered, I think that the Obama budget will be better.
The idea of increasing taxes for the rich, in the "Buffet Rule," is very popular with the public and would attract votes from independents and swing voters. Whereas Paul Ryan's does not raise taxes for millionaires but instead cuts spending. Spending cuts are not the most popular but some independents and swing votes may find that appealing; the "Buffet Rule" does not cover all of the spending increases.
ReplyDeleteThe "Paul Ryan Budget" stems from conservative ideology with lower taxes for the rich to allow for job growth and decrease in spending by the federal government. The "Buffet Rule" has parts from a liberal ideology in which the rich pay more in taxes.
The "Paul Ryan Budget" has strong points by counteracting some spending with other cuts to the budget and allowing the rich to continue living at a lower tax rate. Yet there is a growing movement among the public for higher taxes on the rich. The percentage of vocal Americans who believe that lower tax rates creates jobs has increased especially with the Occupy movement. The "Buffet Rule" on the other hand does account for this desire for higher taxes by the rich yet the increase in taxes does not come close in comparison to the amount of new spending proposed. The problem with both plans is that loopholes in the tax system are not closed. The amount of revenue would increased if the holes were closed. There could be some compromise with the rate of taxes to the rich and the amount of spending cuts. Only that would take sacrifice on both sides. The idea of which plan is better depends on what you would like a budget to accomplish, increase taxes or cut spending. I personally want to see improvement in both budgets. Until then, neither is better then the other.
These budget plans will be a popular topic throughout the campaign, as voters are likely to judge the candidates by their budget plan and then vote from there. Not only will reporters be asking questions about candidate’s budget plans, but the candidates themselves will be asking about the other plans out there - probably not to compromise, but to put the spotlight on the other person and to try to keep their plan in a good light. They can try to defend their budget plans, but I don’t think any candidate will be successful in doing so.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I can point out a budget and say “this one is better for the current economic crisis.” Personally, I can answer that question, but on the larger scale, I think there are too many factors. If the Buffett plan were to be used, it most likely won’t be enough change to do anything. If the Ryan plan were to be used, I almost feel as if the cuts are too deep in some places (although that is coming from the personal side of things), and it still won’t be enough to fix everything. Enough of the population is against either of the plans that no matter what happens, the public will still complain. A compromise is necessary to fix the issue, but I don’t see either side being willing to let the other put in their share; they each want the bigger piece of the pie, so to speak, and might be too stubborn to have equal pieces.
I think Obama’s plan will be more popular with swing voters. Swing voters are generally not in the same category as the “super rich” (who would be negatively affected by the Buffett Rule), but in the category affected by the Ryan plan. Some voters will vote for what they think is best for the country, but most vote for what is best for themselves.
Obama, a democrat, represents the middle class, so he obviously will support the Buffett Rule, which makes taxes more “fair.” Romney, a republican, represents more of the upper class, so obviously he and his campaign will not benefit from supporting something that hurts his constituents.
I think that the "Buffet Rule" will be more popular among the independents and "swing voters" because most independents are members of the middle class, and members of the middle class are generally more supportive of taxes for the rich. These budgets reflect the ideologies of both parties because Democrats are more supportive of taxes as they fuel government programs, and Republicans are not in favor of high taxes because they are not supportive of government programs. I think the "Buffet Rule" is the stronger policy because it's based off of the beliefs of one of the richest men in the nation, and it aligns with the beliefs of most Americans. Both budgets have shortfalls because Americans aren't necessarily aligned perfectly to either the left or the right as they are more moderate. A compromise should be somewhere in the center with slight tax raises for the rich, but since compromise is nearly impossible in out political system, I think the" Buffet Rule" should be applied.
ReplyDeleteTo me, neither plan is really what this country needs for reduction of the deficit or to level the playing field for people to actually reach the American Dream of success. Firstly, both is a clear ideological plan, and neither will really be enacted, in cynical terms: Obama and Romney are just campaigning and won't actually do it, but would claim they couldn't carry out their plan. Obama and the Democrats as a whole all have always said they want a Tax increase on the super wealthy. BUT THEY NEVER HAVE DONE ANYTHING. When the Democrats have a whole house and senate, they still don't pass it. On top of that, it really wouldn't level the playing field anyway, 30% of a million dollars doesn't seem like as much as of 30,000. It's like when Bill Gates donates a billion dollars, that is NOTHING to him at all. The people being taxed really have so much money that the hike wouldn't seriously affect them. Opposition to the Buffett rule is fundamentally flawed as well. Republicans say it is a tax on the job creators. It is not a tax on business, it would represent really just a tax on personal income. That has nothing to do with job creation at all, except that if given the opportunity, many people would choose to lay off a minimum wage worker to get more money than to loose personal income. As for the Ryan plan, it really is just Republican fiscal ideology all the way. They think that by making keeping low taxes on the wealthy, they will trickle down and create jobs. Take Wisconsin. We are loosing jobs right now, whatever Walker may claim, the numbers are saying we have lost jobs. As for deficit reduction, which is a major issue to most voters (and I am personally what is considered a "Debt Hawk") I don't see this as a serious way to reduce the deficit. Now both plans call for an overhaul of Medicare and our SS system. I think it is clear that neither will actually happen, too many interest groups and old people that won't let it happen. Now i would like to take this time to ask, is anyone seriously reading this except Jones? If you are, pleas give me some indication? As I said before, I see both plans as basic campaigning for President. Both sides know that the other respective body of Congress will never pass such a polarizing budget. It is nothing more than a ploy by either side to gain the trust and support of the independents and swing voters. Personally I believe there are few true swing voters (minus Romney) who seriously vote based on rational interpretation of issues. The majority of Independents are really just Democrats or Republicans who don't want to admit it or commit. I think that the independents will vote for whichever party they agree with. Both plans appear to have merits, but neither will help people or reduce deficit.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Obama’s budget is a better step in the right in the right direction than Romney’s. I say step not solution because increasing taxes on the rich will not be enough to fix the debt just reduce it. In order to have an actual solution, Republicans and Democrats must reach across the isle and risk everything their reputations as liberals and conservatives to reach a compromise of increased taxes and decreased spending. Knowing that the odds of this happening are minuscule, I’ll take the Obama plan for now.
ReplyDeleteThe budget will play and always has played a major role in presidential elections. Democratic voters, which tend to include the unemployed and poor, will vote for Obama because they would rather have the rich pay more taxes than lose government benefits. On the other hand, Republican voters oppose any new type of tax and would rather cut government programs because most Republicans are not on government-funded assistance. I believe most independents will go for the Obama plan. Most independents are middle class with families. Under the current tax plan, they pay more or the same as the top 400 wealthiest Americans. Because of this knowledge, most people would have the rich pay more to help reduce the debt.
The two plans are exactly what Democrat and Republican budgets should look like according to ideology. The Romney plan calls for cutting spending which reduces the size of the government and giving the top one percent of Americans tax breaks. While the Obama plan increases taxes on the rich, so the government can better assist its citizens.
The Romney plan’s strength is it lowers taxes. No one likes paying taxes. The downside to that is the government won’t be able to maintain all its programs due to reduced taxes.
With the Obama plan, the tax brackets are “fair” according to one’s income, and the government will be able to better fund its programs. The downside is that raising taxes will just be a drop in the bucket in dealing with our debt.
As I mentioned in my first paragraph, there is a better chance of winning the lottery than Republicans and Democrats working together to solve the debt. This is especially true during an election year when incumbents and candidates want to look as ideologically true as possible. Maybe someday there will be a politician or two who care more about the American people than him/herself and will finally get a solution implemented.
I believe the Buffet rule would be the best solution to the current fiscal situation. Taking into consideration movements such as Occupy Wall Street, it's a given that this plan would be more popular to swing voters and independents, as most of these are from the middle class and support helping the poor by taking from the rich. These budgets reflect the ideology of their proponents in that the Buffet Rule proposes taking from the rich, a highly liberal plan to fix the economy, while the Paul Ryan Plan would leave the wealthy with their investments and the government cutting spending. This is more of conservative way of thinking, so it reflects the ideology of the plan quite well. The Obama Plan finds strength in factoring in fairness for middle and lower class citizens by taking away a little more from the extremely rich with taxes. This will give him a political advantage by means of liberals, but it will not solve the deficit issue. Instead, it will cut less from domestic spending and keep money within the country. The Ryan Plan is powerful because it doesn't call for any new taxes, which many citizens find appealing, but it also cuts other programs that citizens of lower classes need. I don't see much of a compromise. The Ryan Plan and the Buffet Rule call for very different types of taxes, and the competing ideologies will further create a sense of distance from the opposing views. Since the country tends to go pretty liberal, I think the Obama Rule will go over fairly well in the 2012 presidential election, but if America does end up seeing a shift to conservatism, The Ryan Plan could also go very well for Romney.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at both the Ryan and the Obama budgets they are not a complete fix to our nations national budget. Both these plans have flaws because they are both based on ideological differences. I believe that a compromise would make both of these plans much stronger. With that being said I would have to agree with the Obama plan and the buffet rule.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Buffet rule will be the best plan to influence the independent voters. These voters are more in the middle class so they will be in the higher tax bracket and almost everyone I know that is in this tax bracket will want to tax the rich more, no mater the ideology the person leans toward. The plans that will change many minds because of the bias of most people have against the rich.
These budgets are reflections of the ideologies because Ryan has the taxes for rich staying the same and not going up any. They also want to cut the budget in many places. These cuts will be very deep in some spots. It will be interesting it see where these cuts actually take place. Some of cuts will be very dangerous to some agencies and federal employees. The Obama budget will cause the taxes to go up most notably with the buffet rule this would be a good tax increase if republicans could actually pass it.
There will be no compromise between the parties there hasn’t been for many years so why would they start now. This has been a problem for the government for many years. If there was compromise they could have a good budget repair bill, but instead we have nothing but arguments and a deficit and federal debt.
Although neither of the two budgets can be seen as a quick fix, the Buffet Rule is simply a question of equality, an issue that our Constitution was supposedly based on. How is it fair that the filthy rich that choose to contribute practically nothing to the economy be taxed at a lower rate than those that actually do the work that keeps society afloat when the rich like Mitt just hoard it?
ReplyDeleteAlthough neither budget is going to put a dent in our national debt, these practices will be important campaign tactics. Although the Buffet Rule seems obvious, Republicans argue that it hurts job creation, even though recent history shows otherwise. Under Bill Clinton taxes were higher and breaks were few and far between, but the economy thrived. Under his successor, lower taxes and greater breaks coupled with deficit spending (especially on war and the military) led to the greatest recession in recent history. However, many voters are fed up with the current situation, and Obama really hasn’t done much to dig us out of the hole Bush put us in. This will result in lower turnout for Obama and independents t swing to Romney, who will probably lower taxes and start another war with Iran.
Under the current situation of divided government, compromise seems inevitable. Hopefully, but not likely, both sides will be able to agree on a budget that raises revenue from the rich and can cut some military spending.
2. Trails in Wartime.
ReplyDeleteWhen people get convicted of a crime they get to go to a court where they are tried in front of a panel of their peers. When it gets to wartime though, trials take on a whole new life. If it is a high profile case, the legal and moral argument goes out the window and people don’t get a fair and speedy trail. Mary Surratt was convicted as a conspirator in the assassination of President Lincoln. Her trial was very high profile in the fact that she was the only women in the conspiracy. But all of the moral issue went out the window when the trial started. The people in charge of convicting her where all generals in the Union Army. So of course they weren’t impartial and want to see this people convicted because they believed that these conspirators planned the killing of Lincoln. Public opinion change when there is huge cases in the country. This especially happens when the country is divided in the case of The Civil War. Since the trial was in the Union and they were convicting only Confederate supporters, the generals and the public were convinced that the confederates were guilty and there actions showed and supported it. The main issue is the moral issue and the constitutional issue. Is it morally wrong to convict people without any information convicting them. The constitutional issue is that a trial with many people with the opposite idea has no constitutional right. The constitutional doesn’t have any power in times of war, when the US is in times of despair.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth budget plans offer temporary solutions, but since the public demands fast, noticeable answers to the fiscal problems, that's how the budgets must be constructed. I believe Obama's plan is the best way to lead off in the right direction because it's based on a tax that reflects the payer's income; however Romney’s plan calls for a lowered tax across the board, which is an appealing idea to most people because nobody really likes paying taxes. This, and several other key notes, demonstrates that following one's ideology in a pure sense is not the best for the nation seeing as obviously not everyone has the same ideology. To help satisfy the public and do what’s best for the nation the Republicans and Democrats need to come to a middle-of-the-road compromise that takes into account the long-term effects of the new budget.
ReplyDeleteBoth budget plans offer temporary solutions, but since the public demands fast, noticeable answers to the fiscal problems, that's how the budgets must be constructed. I believe Obama's plan is the best way to lead off in the right direction because it's based on a tax that reflects the payer's income; however Romney’s plan calls for a lowered tax across the board, which is an appealing idea to most people because nobody really likes paying taxes. This, and several other key notes, demonstrates that following one's ideology in a pure sense is not the best for the nation seeing as obviously not everyone has the same ideology. To help satisfy the public and do what’s best for the nation the Republicans and Democrats need to come to a middle-of-the-road compromise that takes into account the long-term effects of the new budget.
ReplyDelete