Obama's new budget to cut deficit in half

[airdata]

Via Twitter :

Barack Obama :


When I was sworn in, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. The budget I’m proposing today meets that pledge.

 

[QuantumPion]

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

 

[Fear No Evil]

/Facepalm.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Unfortunately his interpretation of that means to tax everyone to close the gap rather than cut spending in any meaningful way.

 

[Acanthus]

Unfortunately his interpretation of that means to tax everyone to close the gap rather than cut spending in any meaningful way.

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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

wages remain flat, inflation continues and taxes increase. The net result is everyone getting fucked harder. Unless your rich then you are getting richer.

 

[matt0611]

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.

 

[rudder]

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.

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

And what good is per capita? One if five people in the country derive their income from a government job (local, state, federal) or for a company that depends on taxpayer financing. I could care less about per capita... let's talk dollar amounts here.

Taxes do not have to rise. Payroll taxes were cut 2%. Who do you think could manage that money better... me or the federal government? anytime people get to keep more of the money they earn... the better it is for our economy. Sure people put money in banks... but to think it just sits there is ludicrous. banks lend that money to businesses.

Freeze the budget... all of it. Get rid of crap like the NEA. reduce defense spending. Lots of areas to reduce spending. If the federal government can really freeze spending levels.. the CBO predicts tax revenues will rise 7% per year... eventually revenues catch up to the budget. Throw in an amendment that caps the federal budget at a fixed percentange of GDP... and we can survive... without raising taxes.

 

[umbrella39]

Unfortunately his interpretation of that means to tax everyone to close the gap rather than cut spending in any meaningful way.

As opposed to funding 2 wars and a recession with tax cuts. We have to start paying for it someday...

 

[ericlp]

To be fair... Where were you assholes when Bush was on a wild spending spree? At least we don't have a War to pay for. oh well... Not much difference between the two, you guys should ham it up and Love it!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Unfortunately his interpretation of that means to tax everyone to close the gap rather than cut spending in any meaningful way.

To solve this problem we are in, we need both tax increases and spending cuts. The economy is as stable as it is going to be for a while, better start now with the austerity measures.

How politicians justified not allowing the Bush era tax cuts (not just for the wealthy) to expire blows my mind.

 

[BoberFett]

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

 

[chucky2]

2012 re-election is coming....

 

[ElFenix]

can someone explain to me where the deficits are coming from?

iirc, the last year of shrub we had a trillion dollar deficit. but, didn't that include the full cost of the $700 billion bank bail out? and haven't most of the funds been either not used or paid back? was that money credited back or what? and, since we haven't been bailing out banks to the tune of $700 billion each year since then, is the big difference due mostly to lower tax revenue?


(and yes, i've seen the chart with defense spending lumped on top of all other .gov programs. i'm not interested in that sort of hackery)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

can someone explain to me where the deficits are coming from?

iirc, the last year of shrub we had a trillion dollar deficit. but, didn't that include the full cost of the $700 billion bank bail out? and haven't most of the funds been either not used or paid back? was that money credited back or what? and, since we haven't been bailing out banks to the tune of $700 billion each year since then, is the big difference due mostly to lower tax revenue?


(and yes, i've seen the chart with defense spending lumped on top of all other .gov programs. i'm not interested in that sort of hackery)

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

 

[werepossum]

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.

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.

As far as raising taxes, I'm ready for that just as soon as the federal government shows it can cut spending. Real spending, not make a plan that spends more now but shows the spending fairy magically flying away five or ten years in the future. Give me two or three years of increasingly lower (from 2008) real spending, end baseline budgeting, and drop spending back to the 2000 level, and I'll support ending all the Bush tax cuts and returning to Clinton-era tax rates until such time as the national debt is paid off - not that I'll ever live that long! Until then I'll continue to believe what history has taught - that the tax increases will be real while the "draconian" spending cuts will in fact be increases.

 

[PeshakJang]

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 70 years.

Yep, almost half of taxpayers don't contribute a dime.

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.

Please post a link to that study. Even if that is true, as pointed out, it probably comes mainly in the form of military members... and manpower is not necessarily representative of spending.

Fewer government employees, but their pay and benefits continue to eclipse the private sector for similar positions.

Reallocation is a lot more effective than cuts at this point,

Really? So take $50 billion from one program and put it into a different program, and our problems are solved?

and taxes HAVE TO rise.

If I am spending far more every month than I take home in pay... do I tell my employer that my paycheck HAS TO go up? Or do I tell myself, my spending HAS TO go down.

The latter makes sense. The former is liberal idiocy meant to excuse more spending under the guise of "investment".

 

[Doppel]

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.

He has shown no leadership. In this way he is like everybody else in Washington. The US will this year bring in only 55% of the money it spends. This is a crisis that nobody in Washington has the leadership to deal with, at least not also with a hope in hell of being elected. Obama is a weak president at a time when the US needs a strong one.

If this is true - and I'm not at all convinced it is

I am sure it's true. I'm sure it's true for private industry also. It's simply the increase in efficiency common throughout the economy for decades.

Until then I'll continue to believe what history has taught - that the tax increases will be real while the "draconian" spending cuts will in fact be increases.

Safe belief. The federal government will get its deficit in order when the markets force it to, not before.

 

[sactoking]

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.

 

[PeshakJang]

This is a crisis that nobody in Washington has the leadership to deal with, at least not also with a hope in hell of being elected.

That's really the bottom line. As long as we have an entire class of voters that are dependent on the government, and a political party that seeks to do whatever they can to sustain and grow that class of voters, doing what we need to secure the economy will be very difficult.

 

[SammyJr]

As long as we have an entire class of voters that are dependent on the government

Why do you think we have such a large number of people dependent on the Government? Is it because Government Cheese is so tasty? Or is it because there are so few decent jobs available?

Remember that over the last 30 years, America has converted to the Free Trade religion. Any job that can be offshored will be offshored. Where does that leave people? Dependent on Government because **gasp** they need to eat. Offer someone a good job vs. Government cheese and they'll take the former every time. This is a case of the private sector sitting on $1 trillion in cash and not hiring Americans. Yet people want to blame Government and the unemployed guy and ignore the obvious trends.

 

[zinfamous]

Unfortunately his interpretation of that means to tax everyone to close the gap rather than cut spending in any meaningful way.

when your appointed economic advisers are telling you to do the necessary thing: cut entitlements; and then you as elected POTUS, as well as your elected colleagues in Congress are avoiding all cuts to entitlements, across the board and across party lines, you have a problem.

 

[boomerang]

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

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.

 

[boomerang]

To solve this problem we are in, we need both tax increases and spending cuts. The economy is as stable as it is going to be for a while, better start now with the austerity measures.

How politicians justified not allowing the Bush era tax cuts (not just for the wealthy) to expire blows my mind.

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.

 

[ProfJohn]

As opposed to funding 2 wars and a recession with tax cuts. We have to start paying for it someday...

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