Obama to propose $3.99 trillion budget

[fskimospy]

I'm saying that we don't know that Krugman was right or wrong in his assertion that that we should have authorized significantly more stimulus spending...and history certainly doesn't show he was right in this regard as you incorrectly asserted. Krugman was right about many things...but we have no way of knowing whether or not he was right on this particular point.

The evidence clearly indicates he was right. Under your standard of evidence we can never say anyone is right if they advocate different policy than the one that was followed. That is pretty obviously ridiculous.

 

[RickBean]

i think - everything is okay with budget, except two things...
1 - Military spendings(government will spend on military about 530bn$)
2 - spendings on education are much less...
what should we expect from this decision?

 

[werepossum]

Wow. I could spend a lot of time on this post! Anyway, I about fell out of my chair at the bolded. A proposed $2T tax increase is not considered a a "smidge" in the real world...just saying. And his proposal doesn't come close to paying down debt.

You're a better man than I. I could not make it past "Clinton says let's up taxes a smidge and start paying down debt." That level of stupid makes argument pointless.

 

[Darwin333]

so, a fiscal 2016 budget deficit of 474 billion would work out to about 2.55% GDP assuming 2.5% real GDP growth.

a deficit of 2.55% GDP would be lower than 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2003, 2004, and 2009 onward.

All of yall saying that the deficit spending is required for our economy to keep growing are correct but here is the dirty little secret.

GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

So, what is GDP growth if we take all of the deficit spending out of G?

 

[ElFenix]

Wow. I could spend a lot of time on this post! Anyway, I about fell out of my chair at the bolded. A proposed $2T tax increase is not considered a a "smidge" in the real world...just saying. And his proposal doesn't come close to paying down debt.

important information that anyone rational would consider relevant:

$2 trillion over the next decade. The president plans to use much of that to fund new middle-class tax cuts

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

important information that anyone rational would consider relevant:

So I'm the one being irrational by talking in general terms and not going into the level of selective detail that you feel is necessary to support your particular perspective? You're too funny.

 

[ElFenix]

So I'm the one being irrational by talking in general terms and not going into the level of selective detail that you feel is necessary to support your particular perspective? You're too funny.

$2T in one year is massive. $2T in 10 isn't near so. further, that's offset to some extent by other tax cuts. why wouldn't you want to know those two details? i mean, 10 year projections aren't worth anything. the only reason to use it is to inflate numbers to fit some narrative.

 

[dank69]

So I'm the one being irrational by talking in general terms and not going into the level of selective detail that you feel is necessary to support your particular perspective? You're too funny.

I guarantee that if Obama proposed cutting spending by $2T over the next decade you would classify that as a smidge.

 

[ivwshane]

I just know when to give up. You win. All the economists were calling for more stimulus.

Pulling more straw men from your ass I see.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$2T in one year is massive. $2T in 10 isn't near so. further, that's offset to some extent by other tax cuts. why wouldn't you want to know those two details? i mean, 10 year projections aren't worth anything. the only reason to use it is to inflate numbers to fit some narrative.

First of all, I never said nor implied that the $2T was for one year. You're falsely implying that I was either ignorant this covered 10 years or was being deliberately misleading in order to fit some narrative. Your reading comprehension skills appear to be highly suspect if that's your take away. Also, your presumption that I didn't know this particular detail (I did), without any basis in fact, speaks volumes about your reasoning skills as well.

Secondly, I personally believe that it's highly misleading to portray $2T of tax increases over 10 years as a "smidge". Personal opinion. Deal with it.

Thirdly, you're being incredibly dishonest when you said that much of the $2T tax increase was going to fund new middle class tax cuts...the reality here is that only $175B of the $2T (<10%) is slated for tax breaks for the middle class and poor.

And lastly, if anyone here is using Obama's proposed budget to falsely fit some narrative...it's you.

But hey, that's a really cool picture!

 

[ElFenix]

First of all, I never said nor implied that the $2T was for one year.

i didn't say you did. reading is fundamental.

You're falsely implying that I was either ignorant this covered 10 years or was being deliberately misleading in order to fit some narrative. Your reading comprehension skills appear to be highly suspect if that's your take away. Also, your presumption that I didn't know this particular detail (I did), without any basis in fact, speaks volumes about your reasoning skills as well.

Secondly, I personally believe that it's highly misleading to portray $2T of tax increases over 10 years as a "smidge". Personal opinion. Deal with it.

"smidge" is probably referring to the $320 billion over 10 years.

Thirdly, you're being incredibly dishonest when you said that much of the $2T tax increase was going to fund new middle class tax cuts...the reality here is that only $175B of the $2T (<10%) is slated for tax breaks for the middle class and poor.

i got that quote from the fox news article that started this 2 trillion over 10 year thing. i'm glad you see fox news as incredibly dishonest, though.

(the white house figures and the fox news figures disagree by ~$200 billion over 10 years for the three categories mentioned in the $320 billion wh 'fact sheet', not sure where the disconnect is)

And lastly, if anyone here is using Obama's proposed budget to falsely fit some narrative...it's you.

i'm not using obama's proposed budget to fix any narrative.

But hey, that's a really cool picture!

thanks, i like it and thought it was an activity you'd enjoy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

i didn't say you did. reading is fundamental.

Then why did you quote me and bring up your $2T over one year comment out of the box and then imply that I was somehow trying to inflate the numbers to fit my narrative? Also, please tell me exactly why you even mentioned this if not in the context of accusing me of presenting a false narrative. And while you're at it, please tell me exactly what false narrative you're imagining here.

"smidge" is probably referring to the $320 billion over 10 years.

Now your reading nickqt's mind as to the intended meaning of one of his really stupid comments? That's really grasping. Unbelievable.

i got that quote from the fox news article that started this 2 trillion over 10 year thing. i'm glad you see fox news as incredibly dishonest, though.

(the white house figures and the fox news figures disagree by ~$200 billion over 10 years for the three categories mentioned in the $320 billion wh 'fact sheet', not sure where the disconnect is).

You should know better than to use Fox News as a source to argue a point which we now see is factually wrong.

i'm not using obama's proposed budget to fix any narrative.

Yet you certainly implied that I was doing as much for merely mentioning the fact that his proposed budget included $2T in new tax increases. Why can't I make up shit too?

 

[ElFenix]

Then why did you quote me and bring up your $2T over one year comment out of the box

to demonstrate why the timespan is relevant.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

to demonstrate why the timespan is relevant.

And I never said it wasn't relevant.

 

[Zorkorist]

Repubs--"but what about the middle class and the growing wealth gap?!"

Obama--"here's a budget that will address some of that"

Repubs--"more government spending and tax increases!"

Obama--"it's spending on needed infrastructure and tax decreases for the lower and middle class paid for by tax increases on the wealthy by raising taxes on capital gains and profits kept out of America"

Repubs--"sorry, no! Try helping the middle class some other way, we've got to protect the wealthy. And no we have no ideas on how to do that"

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Either lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way!

Jebus,

I read that whole thing in Obama's voice.

I guess you are copying from his speech(es)

It only makes me sick how clueless he is. How he thinks communism, socialism, are the answer to America's problems. How he thinks spending MORE, can be a good thing, when we see countries like Greece, crippled by austerity.

The guy has a nut loose.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Jebus,

I read that whole thing in Obama's voice.

I guess you are copying from his speech(es)

It only makes me sick how clueless he is. How he thinks communism, socialism, are the answer to America's problems. How he thinks spending MORE, can be a good thing, when we see countries like Greece, crippled by austerity.

The guy has a nut loose.

-John

You either have no idea what you are talking about or you just like contradicting yourself

 

[Zorkorist]

There's very little difference between today's Republicans, and Democrats, to be sure.

-John

 

[MongGrel]

important information that anyone rational would consider relevant:

Does change the overall picture of it considerably.

 

[MongGrel]

Jebus,

I read that whole thing in Obama's voice.

I guess you are copying from his speech(es)

It only makes me sick how clueless he is. How he thinks communism, socialism, are the answer to America's problems. How he thinks spending MORE, can be a good thing, when we see countries like Greece, crippled by austerity.

The guy has a nut loose.

-John

Says the guy with a nut loose.