Obama's new budget to cut deficit in half

[sandorski]

Half of Obama's Deficit is still three times larger than Bush's largest deficit, lol.

incorrect

 

[hal2kilo]

incorrect

Hey, he's on a roll, don't blow his high.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I'll give you I was a little loose there with words - drop in the bucket was not appropriate, you're right. My apologies.

But it doesn't let Obama off the hook at all. He sure hasn't made things any better.

 

[PeshakJang]

Obama already told his own deficit commission that he doesn't give a shit about it.

As with all liberals, how to spend money is more important than how much you have.

An end that is morally justified, justifies any means. National bankruptcy and long-term economic outlook is not important as long as 1 person is still hungry.

 

[ProfJohn]

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?

The current yearly cost of the wars is below $100 billion.

Obama's proposed deficit is over $1 trillion.


So the wars amount to 10% of the deficit which means you should stop using that excuse every time the deficit is mentioned.

BTW in 2008 DoD spending was $594 billion and Dept of Human services was $700 billion in his proposed 2013 budget DoD is $648 billion while Human services has grown to $944 billion. So defense spending has grown very little under Obama but social spending has gone up by $240 billion. So if we want to cut spending let's start by cutting all these new programs passed by Obama and the Democrats.

 

[Bowfinger]

Obama already told his own deficit commission that he doesn't give a shit about it.

As with all liberals, how to spend money is more important than how much you have.

An end that is morally justified, justifies any means. National bankruptcy and long-term economic outlook is not important as long as 1 person is still hungry.

Liberals like Reagan and GW Bush, who both spent at similar levels? Oh, that's right, you're far too much a partisan hack to acknowledge reality.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

This is what happens when a stupid / upset electorate votes for a man with no worthwhile qualifications except sloganeering.

The Obamaphiles can rail at this all they want and shout ahbuh, ahbuh, abuuuuuuush! all they want, but it doesn't change reality.

Any 8 year old kid that has run a lemonade stand has more business experience that Obama, who's only experience comes from the rabble-rousing business of 'screw the maaannn'. He has no clue how to run a country or how to interact internationally. He's a world-class failure.

This isn't an 'I hate all libs/dems/progressives' rant. I don't care where he comes from politically as far as this discussion goes. He's a cataclysmic failure.

 

[PeshakJang]

Liberals like Reagan and GW Bush, who both spent at similar levels? Oh, that's right, you're far too much a partisan hack to acknowledge reality.

Ok, sorry... every time I have a criticism of a current political figure, I will make sure I also bring up every former political figure of the 20th century and find something to criticize about them.

And BTW... a political hack would be somebody who looked at Obama and said, with a straight face, that he is guided by reality and not a fantasy liberal vision of how the world *should* work.

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

Bush's last deficit was not his deficit.

That budget was pushed into 2009 by Democrats who knew they were going to win in 2008 and wanted to wait till they had a Democrat in charge before passing the budget.

Also, Obama's first order of business was to pass a $700 billion give away which is what blew a hole in the FY 2009 budget.

 

[Jaskalas]

Half of a negative number is still a negative number. The country is increasing the national debt by spending more than it brings in and any President/Congress that contributes to this is an economic failure.

The American People are the economic failure.

We elect these bozos into office and call them our leaders. We grant them thunderous applause as they ruin the nation. So long as these men's detractors are only the opposing party, this nation will fail to meet its obligations.

Taxes must rise, spending must be cut, and off-shoring jobs must get you sent to the guillotine. (Figuratively, or literally?) :hmm:

Tell that to the American people, that their home economics of bankrupting yourself in debt is what has ruined this nation. Tell them that they are to blame for our leaders. Tell the American people it is because of THEM that we must make hard choices and tough decisions.

The money ride is over. It'll either happen gently or suddenly. You had best pray they do it before the end of the line. Time is short, the chances of them doing it are practically nil. Brace yourself for impact.

 

[ProfJohn]

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?

Reagan didn't have total control of congress like Obama and the Democrats did.

 

[PeshakJang]

For those who haven't looked at the actual bill, here are some excerpts:

Full of the usual jokes...

In his first Budget, the President confronted directly the fiscal situation he inherited

The President pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half

And jokes...

He signed into law pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation that returned the tough budget rules of the 1990s to Washington.

Outright lies...

the President advocated for and signed into law fiscally responsible health reform that will reduce our deficit by more than $200 billion over the next 10 years and more than $1 trillion over the second 10 years, as well as fully pay for all new coverage.

And he even mentions the deficit commission that he convened and then told to fuck off...

Finally, the President convened the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Fiscal Commission). Its work has reset the debate about further deficit reduction, and a number of its proposals are incorporated in this Budget.

More jokes...

Upon taking office, the President also demanded that the Government spend every taxpayer dollar with as much care as taxpayers spend their own dollars.

He says,

Recognizing that the pace of the economic recovery
is not fast enough, the President has taken
a series of steps—including signing into a law a
bipartisan tax bill that prevented a tax increase

When he means,

Recognizing that the nation had turned against him, and he no longer had the power in congress to enact his agenda, the President has taken
a series of steps—including being forced into signing into law a law a
bipartisan tax bill that prevented a tax increase

"This budget spends less by spending more."

That is why the President has put forward a Budget that
builds on what he has already accomplished by
further restraining spending and tackling our
long-term fiscal challenges, while continuing to
expand investments in areas that are critical to
long-term economic growth.

Since fiscal year 2009,
earmarks have decreased in dollar amount by
over $3 billion, despite the best efforts of Democrats in congress.

Still lying...

That is why the President signed into law the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) which, according to the
Congressional Budget Office’s latest analysis,
will save more than $200 billion over the next 10
years and reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion
over the second decade.

Look at this... doing what conservatives have been calling for, and what liberals have said is the worst thing you could ever do...

The President is calling on the Congress to
work with the Administration on corporate
tax reform that would simplify the system,
eliminate these special interest loopholes,
level the playing field, and use the savings
to lower the corporate tax rate for the first
time in 25 years—and do so without adding
a dime to our deficit.

 

[PeshakJang]

And the biggest joke of them all:

Social Security does not face an immediate crisis
and is not driving our short-term deficits or
long-term debt

 

[PeshakJang]

Also, according to the summary tables for future projections, the deficit is cut in half in 4 years... not because of any spending cuts, but because tax receipts will increase by a trillion dollars.

Good planning there.

 

[Vette73]

If this is true - and I'm not at all convinced it is - it's only because of the massive cuts in the military under Clinton. If there's one thing at which politicians excel, it's lying, and with the huge rise in government contract employees it's easy to make claims that are blatant lies.

.

So 16.7% is "massive" is it?

$453 billion – the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
$377 billion – the average annual defense budget during Clinton’s time in office, a 16.7% decrease.

Good thing Canada did not invade with only 377 Billion spent on the military in the US. :biggrin:

 

[Vette73]

Obama already told his own deficit commission that he doesn't give a shit about it.

As with all liberals, how to spend money is more important than how much you have.

An end that is morally justified, justifies any means. National bankruptcy and long-term economic outlook is not important as long as 1 person is still hungry.

Yea I know. Look what those Liberal presidents did

Hopefully we can get some republicans back in the white house to fix it. :awe:

 

[Craig234]

We have more people feeding at the government trough (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc) now more than any other time in our history.

We also have less elder poverty, more healthcare, less hunger, more people in bigger houses, safer food and workplaces also. Gotta pay for it.

And oh by the way, can we just not afford it? We have a higher concentration of wealth than in our history, also. Gotta pay for that, too. Or IMO, get rid of the extreme.

 

[Craig234]

Reagan didn't have total control of congress like Obama and the Democrats did.

The lie repeated. The Democrats were blocked constantly by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

 

[PeshakJang]

Yea I know. Look what those Liberal presidents did

Hopefully we can get some republicans back in the white house to fix it. :awe:

Find me a chart showing the same thing by control of congress and we'll talk.

 

[ProfJohn]

So 16.7% is "massive" is it?

$453 billion – the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
$377 billion – the average annual defense budget during Clinton’s time in office, a 16.7% decrease.

Good thing Canada did not invade with only 377 Billion spent on the military in the US. :biggrin:

Go back and look at the budget surplus under Clinton and compare it to the cuts in defense spending.

The only way he had a surplus at all is due to defense spending cuts, and a sharp increase in tax revenue due to the dot com bubble.

 

[ProfJohn]

The lie repeated. The Democrats were blocked constantly by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

Blocked in what??? Spending cuts???

Try to stay on topic please.

 

[PeshakJang]

The lie repeated. The Democrats were blocked constantly by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

The same excuse repeated... Republicans stand up for their principals, and Democrats roll over and take it. Poor Democrats. If only we had more progressives, right?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hopefully we can get some republicans back in the white house to fix it. :awe:

Somebody needs to fix it and I don't care who does. Right now it looks like the Reps are more serious about doing something than the Dems.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The lie repeated. The Democrats were blocked constantly by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

Perhaps if they actually tried to work with them they would get better results. The ram-it-down-your-throat, take-it-or-leave-it political strategy has it's drawbacks...no?

 

[alkemyst]

We should have less workers per capita than 1900, we have this stuff called automations that have happened.