Obama's new budget to cut deficit in half

[dmcowen674]

I try to be fair with Obama, but I truly feel he is simply not showing any leadership in any meaningful way when it comes to debt and deficits. All we have gotten is tiny things that sound good to the public but will help very little. I'm very disappointed with him.

and your hero Bush showed leadership in debt and deficits how?

 

[dmcowen674]

All we need is for a true leader to emerge. A leader that can explain it to the masses in a convincing manner. A leader that also has the balls to actually do it. A leader that is willing to commit what could end up being political suicide for the betterment of the country.

I have seen no such leader.

and your hero Bush showed leadership in debt and deficits how?

 

[dmcowen674]

No, he's not. It's political posturing. His move towards the center is solely because he'd like to serve a second term. If not for the election of a Republican majority in the House his positions would not have changed one iota and it's extremely important to remember this.

Many will never realize this and many that do will forget. And he's counting on that.

and your hero Bush showed leadership in debt and deficits how?

 

[dmcowen674]

He has shown no leadership. In this way he is like everybody else in Washington.

and your hero Bush showed leadership in debt and deficits how?

 

[ProfJohn]

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 70 years.

Tax rates are meaningless.

The only way to measure taxation is to look at the percentage of GDP being collected by the government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
page 24

70 years ago in 1940 the government collected only 6.8% of our countries GDP.
During WW 2 it rose to 20.9%

After the war ended it dropped into the 17-18% range and stayed there from 1946 till 1994 when it rose to 18% and stayed above that point for 8 years.

Due to the recession it has dropped to the 15% range, but once the recession ends it should again rise above 18%. Obama's own budget expects it to hit nearly 18% in 2013 and 19% by 2015.

So the amount of money flowing into government long term is NOT our problem. The problem is Obama's desire to keep spending 22% of our GDP on government.

 

[dmcowen674]

To be fair...

Where were you assholes when Bush was on a wild spending spree?

They were off having fun with all the extra money they got from Bush cutting their taxes.

 

[BoberFett]

derp?

derp?

derp?

Typical.

 

[dmcowen674]

Tax rates are meaningless.

That's funny, they weren't meaningless when your hero Bush was cutting taxes for the rich.

 

[dmcowen674]

Between this and his recent statement on government backed mortgages, is Obama wising up?

Did your hero Bush wise up causing all this?

 

[jhbball]

Typical.

Typical.

 

[Darwin333]

Did your hero Bush wise up causing all this?

He is too busy parking oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico and trying to get them to form a gigantic raised middle finger that can only be seen from space. Then he will be busy setting up a satellite flyby so you can see it with google earth.

 

[UberNeuman]

If that D were an R most of you joyjerkers would soundly be supporting him...

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, the non defense discretionary budget is 477 billion and the deficit is 1.65 trillion. So if we cut off everything that benefited the poor and middle class, oh, and probably the oil companies and wealthy corporate farmers, we'd still have a 1.2 trillion deficit. The republiCon brainiacs don't think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. What's wrong with the picture.

 

[Pulsar]

There is a lot of both.

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 70 years. Something has to give.

When you combine federal, state, local, and even military government employees... we have less government manpower per capita than any other time in the 1900's.

Reallocation is a lot more effective than cuts at this point, and taxes HAVE TO rise.

First of all,

US POP
1984 - 235.8 mil
2006 - 304 mil
2010 - 308.7 mil

Gov Emp
1984 -16.8 mil
2006 - 19.5 mil
2010 - 22.5 mil

So:
1984 - 1 gov employee to every 14 citizens
2006 - 1 gov employee to every 15.6 citizens
2010 - 1 gov employee to every 13.7 citizens

Random years, data pulled from google census data for population and data360.org for governmental employees.

Exactly who funded this magical study you're quoting from?

Of course, I just pulled unbiased numbers off the net, and really had no point to prove other than, well, your argument is pretty specious.

Reallocation? Really? Going to play more games while our currency value is destroyed, our credit ratings drops, and our country goes bankrupt?

I've got a better idea. Cut what we spend. Increase the taxes on higher income earners. Close the loopholes (essentially increasing taxes) on the rest. Cut government in a huge way. Cut defense, but also take a huge cut in CURRENT payouts of SS etc etc.

Yeah, I'm a heartless bastard. Think of the children and all that bullshit. On the other hand, I've never been late paying a fucking bill and my checkbook always balances. Welcome to reality.

Just wait though. Last time I suggested that it's that simple, I had a whole boatload of politician-turned-accountant types tell me that it's not that simple.

 

[K1052]

700 billion full cost of bailout? What? Way more than that. Most news outlets reporting numbers in the trillions

http://www.google.com/search?client...q=cost+of+bailout+trillion&btnG=Google+Search

<---looks at sources.....then looks at dates....

er..

 

[etrigan420]

First of all,

US POP
1984 - 235.8 mil
2006 - 304 mil
2010 - 308.7 mil

Gov Emp
1984 -16.8 mil
2006 - 19.5 mil
2010 - 22.5 mil

So:
1984 - 1 gov employee to every 14 citizens
2006 - 1 gov employee to every 15.6 citizens
2010 - 1 gov employee to every 13.7 citizens

Random years, data pulled from google census data for population and data360.org for governmental employees.

Exactly who funded this magical study you're quoting from?

Of course, I just pulled unbiased numbers off the net, and really had no point to prove other than, well, your argument is pretty specious.

Reallocation? Really? Going to play more games while our currency value is destroyed, our credit ratings drops, and our country goes bankrupt?

I've got a better idea. Cut what we spend. Increase the taxes on higher income earners. Close the loopholes (essentially increasing taxes) on the rest. Cut government in a huge way. Cut defense, but also take a huge cut in CURRENT payouts of SS etc etc.

Yeah, I'm a heartless bastard. Think of the children and all that bullshit. On the other hand, I've never been late paying a fucking bill and my checkbook always balances. Welcome to reality.

Just wait though. Last time I suggested that it's that simple, I had a whole boatload of politician-turned-accountant types tell me that it's not that simple.

Oh - and I lean right most of the time, so Mr. Trollmeister hal2kilo can go to hell to. You demoRATs are all baby killers. See, I can play that game too! What fun! How totally constructive it is to call names.

Where are you getting 2010 data for numbers of government employees? Granted, I'm a bit of a dumb ass, but all I can see here is numbers through 2006,

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

As a side note, and again, I'm probably reading the graph wrong...but doesn't that graph read like there has been no appreciable increase in the number of *federal* government employees in the 60 years that they chart?

Here's another from that same website...

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=147

Granted, I can't speak to the validity of the information contained, but the federal numbers appear to be the opposite of what you stated. (Again, only through 2006, and only as applied to my ability to read a graph...)

At any rate, I'm all in favor of your suggestions, especially the closing of loopholes.

Now, find me a Republican willing to cut defense, and a Democrat willing to cut entitlements, and I'll find you...something...something not easy to find...it will be cool...I promise. :hmm:

 

[umbrella39]

The cost of both wars combined is less than one year's deficit under Obama. (And that is 8_ years of war)

which has nothing to do with having to pay for it now does it. We have to clean up the last mess before we can fix the current one. Why don't the fanbois want to pay for the wars they championed and hid from?

 

[hal2kilo]

which has nothing to do with having to pay for it now does it. We have to clean up the last mess before we can fix the current one. Why don't the fanbois want to pay for the wars they championed and hid from?

Cause it's embarassing and deals with reality in an adult way?

 

[LegendKiller]

Obama's "budget" is such a failure. Bold men make bold moves, he's being a wimp.

 

[hal2kilo]

Obama's "budget" is such a failure. Bold men make bold moves, he's being a wimp.

So says the beneficiary of the bail out (which was necessary).

He should never of aquiesced to the tax breaks for the rich no?

Once again not to repeat myself...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31246099&postcount=38

 

[SparkyJJO]

All we need is for a true leader to emerge. A leader that can explain it to the masses in a convincing manner. A leader that also has the balls to actually do it. A leader that is willing to commit what could end up being political suicide for the betterment of the country.

I have seen no such leader.

Sadly, this.

The cost of both wars combined is less than one year's deficit under Obama. (And that is 8_ years of war)

How ironic. I find it funny how libs were screaming about the federal deficit (which I wasn't happy about either) but then when their "savior" Obama gets in and makes Bush's deficit look like a drop in the bucket many say it is fine and dandy and even necessary for "economic recovery." I still don't see how maxing your credit cards gets you out of a financial problem

and your hero Bush showed leadership in debt and deficits how?

Nice post spamming. Didn't you vote for Bush twice anyway? Hypocrite.

So says the beneficiary of the bail out (which was necessary).

I disagree. A company does something stupid that gets them into financial ruin, well, their own stupid fault, let them go bankrupt.

I wasn't in favor of any of the bailouts. Especially when I saw them take the money then hand out bonuses and take vacations with it, that got my really ticked off.

 

[Bowfinger]

Tax rates are meaningless.

The only way to measure taxation is to look at the percentage of GDP being collected by the government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
page 24

70 years ago in 1940 the government collected only 6.8% of our countries GDP.
During WW 2 it rose to 20.9%

After the war ended it dropped into the 17-18% range and stayed there from 1946 till 1994 when it rose to 18% and stayed above that point for 8 years.

Due to the recession it has dropped to the 15% range, but once the recession ends it should again rise above 18%. Obama's own budget expects it to hit nearly 18% in 2013 and 19% by 2015.

So the amount of money flowing into government long term is NOT our problem. The problem is Obama's desire to keep spending 22% of our GDP on government.

Here's the part that confuses me. As a percentage of GDP, Obama-era tax receipts are about the same as Reagan-era tax receipts. Similarly, Obama total spending (budget + off-budget) is about the same as Reagan. Yet the right (in general) loves Reagan and loathes Obama. WTF?

Both of them spend too much. Neither seems willing to act responsibly and raise taxes, even moderately, to help pay our bills. In short, both are digging us ever deeper into the hole. When it comes to fiscal policy, they are far more alike than different.

 

[davmat787]

The cost of both wars combined is less than one year's deficit under Obama. (And that is 8_ years of war)

That kind of puts that one to rest! lol.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Obama gets in and makes Bush's deficit look like a drop in the bucket ....

Yeah, not exactly. Far from being your "drop in the bucket," the deficit under Bush's last budget is about the same as Obama's. In other words, Obama inherited a hugely unbalanced budget. That doesn't let him off the hook for working to fix it, but it's time to kill this GOP revisionist history. We need less finger pointing and more belt tightening.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, not exactly. Far from being your "drop in the bucket," the deficit under Bush's last budget is about the same as Obama's. In other words, Obama inherited a hugely unbalanced budget. That doesn't let him off the hook for working to fix it, but it's time to kill this GOP revisionist history. We need less finger pointing and more belt tightening.

Revisionist history=RepubliCons