Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '10 14:23 / 1 edit
    with a $1.3 trillion deficit (and deficits are rarely kept to their projections).

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/01/01climatewire-obamas-budget-pushes-clean-technologies-cuts-86818.html

    Gee, if I make $80k, I think I'll budget to spend $120k next year.

    :'(

    In that video of Obama speaking to the House GOP (and, USAP, thanks for linking to it; great video), the Congressman from WI asked Obama about discretionary spending being up 84%. After the President went on for 5 minutes about how that's all due to spending that was already locked in, the Congressman basically said "No, Mr. President, the 84% refers to discretionary spending above and beyond what's locked in." All Obama could do was say "we'll talk about it later" like a teacher who was stumped by a student's question on front of the class.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY (from about minutes 32-38)

    To head off the obvious partial rejoinder, yes, Bush was also irresponsible in allowing large budget deficits. The 2001 tax cut was a terrible idea. But to this point, Obama is proving to be even more irresponsible on this issue.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '10 14:26
    Make a proposal that balances the budget.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '10 14:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Make a proposal that balances the budget.
    Obviously, I don't know enough to be specific about a 2011 budget that is balanced. I also would agree that a completely balanced budget for 2011 is probably impossible.

    But, do you really think there needs to be a deficit of $1.3 trillion? The largest deficit under Bush was less than half of that. What happened to the smart tax hikes? What happened to cutting out earmarks? What happened to taking a scalpel to the budget? What happened to responsible fiscal policy? All of that is impossible for this year?
  4. 01 Feb '10 15:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    with a $1.3 trillion deficit (and deficits are rarely kept to their projections).

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/01/01climatewire-obamas-budget-pushes-clean-technologies-cuts-86818.html

    Gee, if I make $80k, I think I'll budget to spend $120k next year.

    :'(

    In that video of Obama speaking to the House GOP (and, USAP, thanks for linking to it; g ...[text shortened]... idea. But to this point, Obama is proving to be even more irresponsible on this issue.
    Do you have any links that show the data that produced this 84% number?




    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obamas-38-trillion-budget.html

    according to this, Obama's 2011 budget proposal includes $1.415 Trill in discretionary spending.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/ --- see table 5.5

    according to this OMB site, discretionary spending in 2009 was 1.492 Trill, and the estimate for 2010 was 1.247 Trill

    so by my calculations, assuming the discretionary spending for 2010 really did drop to 1.247, the rise back to 1.415 is only an increase of 13% - NOT 84%

    Am I missing something here, or do they use some kind of alternative math in Wisconsin?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '10 15:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Do you have any links that show the data that produced this 84% number?




    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obamas-38-trillion-budget.html

    according to this, Obama's 2011 budget proposal includes $1.415 Trill in discretionary spending.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/ --- see table 5.5

    according to ...[text shortened]... 84%

    Am I missing something here, or do they use some kind of alternative math in Wisconsin?
    No; I have only the Congressman's word for it. He is the ranking GOP member on the budget committee (or at least he says he is; I have no link to prove it).

    In any case, I believe he was talking about 2010 fiscal year as opposed to 2009, not 2011 as opposed to 2010.
  6. 01 Feb '10 16:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    No; I have only the Congressman's word for it. He is the ranking GOP member on the budget committee (or at least he says he is; I have no link to prove it).

    In any case, I believe he was talking about 2010 fiscal year as opposed to 2009, not 2011 as opposed to 2010.
    well if he's talking about 2010 vs 2009, the discretionary spending actually dropped from 1.492 Trill in 2009 to 1.247 Trill in 2010

    Wait a minute. 1.247 Trill is 84% of 1.492 Trill. The guy from Wisconsin is an idiot!!!
    The level of spending in 2010 is only 84% of what it HAD been in 2009. That is, it DROPPED 16% from 1492 to 1247.
  7. 01 Feb '10 16:14 / 1 edit
    President Obama sent Congress a $3.8 trillion budget Monday for fiscal year 2011, pushing a plan that includes new jobs-creation programs but is projected to add nearly $1.3 trillion in deficit spending on top of the current year's projected $1.6 trillion deficit.

    According to the plan, the 2011 deficit of $1.267 trillion would fund nearly the entirety of the year's discretionary spending, which is $1.415 trillion or 37 percent of the government's total outlays. Mandatory spending on items such as entitlements and interest payments make up the rest.

    The Senate moved last week to extend the nation's debt limit to $14.3 trillion to accommodate the projected gap for the current spending year, which ends Sept. 30, but with another $1.3 trillion hole next year, the nation's debt could reach $15.6 trillion by Oct. 1, 2011. That would surpass the nation's annual gross domestic product.

    A $1.6 trillion deficit would represent 10.6 percent of current GDP, while 2011's budget deficit would be 8. 3 percent of GDP. The White House says over the next 10 years, the average deficit will represent only 4.5 percent of GDP annually. Last year's deficit was $1.42 trillion.

    Obama on Monday blamed much of the nation's budget woes on tax cuts passed under the prior administration, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and other programs. He called for reining in the budget over time, but said the need to help Americans hurting from the economic downturn makes that difficult to do right away.

    "We have to do what families across America are doing -- save where we can, so that we can afford what we need," Obama said. "We won't be able to bring down this deficit overnight."

    According to White House estimates, the budget's deficit for fiscal year 2013 would drop to $700 billion before jumping back up to $1 trillion in 2020, the furthest out that budgeters will predict.

    Though Obama has pushed spending well above the levels he inherited from his predecessor, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag highlighted multi-billion-dollar cuts the administration made in the proposed budget to keep the deficit from rising any higher.

    "There was a significant increase in spending that was projected before we even took office," Orszag told Fox News. "All in, we have more than a trillion dollars in deficit reduction over the next decade."

    In the proposed budget, the White House is touting $20 billion in cuts and savings.

    But those savings are offset by increases elsewhere. For instance, the administration is budgeting a $20 billion increase in certain education funding -- a $17 billion increase for Pell Grant funding and a $3 billion increase for programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

    Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said the White House is not going far enough in tackling the debt crisis.

    "We've got some pretty big problems here. We need some pretty big solutions," Gregg told Fox News. "This is fiscal insanity -- to continue to grow the government the way we're growing it, to continue to spend the way we're spending. ... We're going to pass onto our kids a country that basically is insolvent."

    The budget assumes unemployment will remain high in the near future. It projects 10 percent unemployment on average for 2010 and 9.2 percent unemployment for 2011. It projects a 3.8 percent increase in GDP in 2011, compared with a 2.7 percent increase this year.

    And like last year, the budget includes a limit on charitable and mortgage deductions for families making more than $250,000 a year. The measure is expected to bring in $291 billion over the next decade.

    The numbers come as the president and congressional Democrats have pivoted from preparing a $1 trillion health care proposal to focusing on jobs and the deficit. Speaking at the State of the Union last week, Obama told a joint session of Congress that he wants to freeze spending -- beginning in 2011 -- on discretionary spending except the military, veterans and homeland security. The president said that would save $250 billion over 10 years.

    The budget also includes a freeze on pay for White House senior staff.

    "There's a three-year discretionary spending freeze and that is to say there is a three-year cap on domestic discretionary spending," said Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on CNN. "Within that cap we're going to have to prioritize just like every business or every family would, so we're going to have to do away with the things that we don't need in order to pay for the things that we do."

    But keeping budget deficits where they are currently projected will happen only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire as scheduled at the end of this year. The White House calculates tax hikes would generate $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years.

    "We just did an 84 percent increase in a very short period of time of all this new spending. Democrats, since they took over Congress, increased domestic discretionary spending by $1.4 trillion," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said on "Fox News Sunday."

    "We don't think taking all this money out of the private economy up to Washington and spending it through Washington is the way to create jobs. We believe we should keep that money in the economy," Ryan added.

    Congressional sources say Obama's new budget will propose extending the popular middle-class tax breaks of $400 per individual and $800 per couple through 2011. They were due to expire after this year.

    It also calls for $250 payments to 57 million Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving inflation-pegged, cost-of-living increases because the consumer price index is so low.

    In the president's budget, Obama is going to set aside $160 billion for the war in Afghanistan and ongoing operations in Iraq.

    http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&content=32446396&pageNum=-1
  8. 01 Feb '10 16:51
    "It also calls for $250 payments to 57 million Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving inflation-pegged, cost-of-living increases because the consumer price index is so low." From Uther.

    Now, I'm not impartial to this being that my wife is disabled and collects that monthly SSD check, and I hope would get the $250 bounce, but I think that the CPI is totally out to lunch on this. I've been looking at the descriptors that go into this, without trying to figure out the alebraic formulas using a base year, and it is my observation that items that force a real weight on consmers such as utilities and medical insurance are undervalued.

    I ask you, do you really believe that the cost of living is stagnant?
  9. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    01 Feb '10 17:03
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    well if he's talking about 2010 vs 2009, the discretionary spending actually dropped from 1.492 Trill in 2009 to 1.247 Trill in 2010

    Wait a minute. 1.247 Trill is 84% of 1.492 Trill. The guy from Wisconsin is an idiot!!!
    The level of spending in 2010 is only 84% of what it HAD been in 2009. That is, it DROPPED 16% from 1492 to 1247.
    Nice catch.
  10. 01 Feb '10 17:12
    Originally posted by badmoon
    "It also calls for $250 payments to 57 million Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving inflation-pegged, cost-of-living increases because the consumer price index is so low." From Uther.

    Now, I'm not impartial to this being that my wife is disabled and collects that monthly SSD check, and I hope would ge ...[text shortened]... ce are undervalued.

    I ask you, do you really believe that the cost of living is stagnant?
    maybe they're basing the CPI on the price of cheese in wisconsin.

    groceries in silicon valley keep going up!
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '10 17:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    Obviously, I don't know enough to be specific about a 2011 budget that is balanced. I also would agree that a completely balanced budget for 2011 is probably impossible.

    But, do you really think there needs to be a deficit of $1.3 trillion? The largest deficit under Bush was less than half of that. What happened to the smart tax hikes? What happened to cutti ...[text shortened]... he budget? What happened to responsible fiscal policy? All of that is impossible for this year?
    I believe Bush's last budget turned up actually over a $1 trillion in the red, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong (I'm too lazy this morning to check).

    The only way the budget is going to be balanced is to raise taxes on the wealthy to something approaching pre-Reagan (including taxing other sources of income at the same level as wages) and ending the wars and reducing our gigantic "defense" budget to some level that approaches what other countries' spend (rather than have it more than what the next ten combined do).

    You in?
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '10 17:36 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I believe Bush's last budget turned up actually over a $1 trillion in the red, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong (I'm too lazy this morning to check).

    The only way the budget is going to be balanced is to raise taxes on the wealthy to something approaching pre-Reagan (including taxing other sources of income at the same level as wages) and ending t spend (rather than have it more than what the next ten combined do).

    You in?
    How about we do all those things partially (Clinton rates, cap gains max rate back to 28% etc.) and cut all earmarks and federal funding of local projects that are really none of the federal government's business?

    We can have the payroll tax pick up again at $250k of income and raise the SS and Medicare ages (those rules were written when life expectancy was at least 5 years shorter). Who knows? Maybe SS and Medicare will pay for themselves.

    The budget was balanced under Clinton. No inherent reason Obama can't do the same.
  13. 01 Feb '10 17:38
    there's quite enough Robert E. Byrd Centers for Tadpole Studies in W. Va.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '10 19:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    How about we do all those things partially (Clinton rates, cap gains max rate back to 28% etc.) and cut all earmarks and federal funding of local projects that are really none of the federal government's business?

    We can have the payroll tax pick up again at $250k of income and raise the SS and Medicare ages (those rules were written when life expectancy wa ...[text shortened]... mselves.

    The budget was balanced under Clinton. No inherent reason Obama can't do the same.
    I could live with that though I don't agree with all of it (probably politically impossible to raise the SS age).

    We have a deal. Do you want to send the e-mail to the WH, HR, Senate, DNC and RNC or should I?
  15. 01 Feb '10 19:36
    Nope. My SS is on the horizon. Let it be.