Obama budget

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;678504 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/irs-would-add-5-000-employees-under-obama-s-budget-proposal.html
  
  UNREAL! We should already be in the process of dismantiling the IRS and here he goes with adding another 5,000 bureaucrats to harass and regulate THE PEOPLE even further.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ............

  
  IRS is not going anywhere, sorry. Hell, even Reagan didn't get rid of it.
  Also, what is wrong with going after tax cheats?
  Even my R friends are in favor of that one.
  
  I'm ok with the budget. It obviously could have gone more, but that is irrelevant as no budget submitted is the same as passed by Congress.
• tk421

  

  You're okay with the government spending 1.6 Trillion dollars more than it takes in? Nothing is ever going to change if we have obviously educated people like ptown who are OK with this crap. I doubt if this country will last until I'm 35.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;678652 wrote:You're okay with the government spending 1.6 Trillion dollars more than it takes in?

  
  No, but dramatically balancing the budget right now is not an option as is destabilizing.
  A more gradual balancing is the more prudent way to do it.
  
  I would have loved the budget to tackle SS and Medicare, as well as guy the Education and other domestic departments. I would have loved to see some of the recommendations from the budget commission. But, we'll see what Congress does as that is what matters now. I'm ok with this budget as it is just a starting point.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  ptown_trojans_1;678613 wrote:IRS is not going anywhere, sorry. Hell, even Reagan didn't get rid of it.
  Also, what is wrong with going after tax cheats?
  Even my R friends are in favor of that one.
  
  I'm ok with the budget. It obviously could have gone more, but that is irrelevant as no budget submitted is the same as passed by Congress.

  
  I'd have preferred 5,000 new investigators to find and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Those folks could easily pay for themselves quicker than further harassment of taxpayers.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;678691 wrote:I'd have preferred 5,000 new investigators to find and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Those folks could easily pay for themselves quicker than further harassment of taxpayers.

  Can't argue with that one.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;678658 wrote:No, but dramatically balancing the budget right now is not an option as is destabilizing.
  A more gradual balancing is the more prudent way to do it.

  
  Completely false, rookie. The best way to do it is QUICK and DEEP. Get the most massive amount of pain out of the way quickest .... any turnaround specialist knows this. I think many in DC are still in complete fantasy land and they have lived it so long they simply cannot realize the extent of insolvency we are already in. If we do not IMMEDIATELY halt the growth of the debt, we are finished.
  
  GET IN THE GAME, PLEASE!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;678758 wrote:Completely false, rookie. The best way to do it is QUICK and DEEP. Get the most massive amount of pain out of the way quickest .... any turnaround specialist knows this. I think many in DC are still in complete fantasy land and they have lived it so long they simply cannot realize the extent of insolvency we are already in. If we do not IMMEDIATELY halt the growth of the debt, we are finished.
  
  GET IN THE GAME, PLEASE!

  
  I disagree. History shows that deep balancing of budgets with massive cuts has an awful track record. (Europe, US during the late 20, early 30s, Britain now)
  I'm for cuts, just over the medium term. Our economy is too fragile right now to throw in massive federal cuts across the board-to ag., education, loans, energy, defense, SS, healthcare, and other programs.
  
  I'm also for really tackling the biggest of the problems: SS and Medicare. No one has a real solution those problems yet and sadly this budget dodged the issue too.
• tk421

  

  ptown_trojans_1;678658 wrote:No, but dramatically balancing the budget right now is not an option as is destabilizing.
  A more gradual balancing is the more prudent way to do it.
  
  I would have loved the budget to tackle SS and Medicare, as well as guy the Education and other domestic departments. I would have loved to see some of the recommendations from the budget commission. But, we'll see what Congress does as that is what matters now. I'm ok with this budget as it is just a starting point.

  How is this even a starting point to gradual balancing? I don't understand how anyone can see this as paving the way for anything but more spending. This is the highest budget ever sent to Congress. How is spending even more than ever before somehow going to miraculously balance the budget? I must be stupid, because I don't understand the math on this. How does cutting 100B out of 1.6 Trillion of deficit every year count as balancing the budget? That's like me maxing out my credit cards every year but cutting out my daily coffee.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I agree somewhat. I think last year's was higher, just by a little bit.
  But, until someone can tackle the big 3, it is impossible to truly balance it.
  I would imagine most of the increases come from the increase in SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
  
  I say I'm ok with it, as I see it as a starting point and know that it will change dramatically between now and whenever the hell it is passed.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;678658 wrote:A more gradual balancing is the more prudent way to do it.

  That sounds great but a more gradual spending increase is a far more likely scenario. It may not be prudent but not much coming out of the Beltway is.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;679016 wrote:That sounds great but a more gradual spending increase is a far more likely scenario. It may not be prudent but not much coming out of the Beltway is.

  
  Sadly, I see that too as more likely.
  No one has the guts to really tackle SS and Medicare and as a result, the budget will keep going up.
• Belly35

  

  ptown_trojans_1;679037 wrote:Sadly, I see that too as more likely.
  No one has the guts to really tackle SS and Medicare and as a result, the budget will keep going up.

  The first step into SS, Medicare and Welfare is to be serious about fraud within the organization and with those creating fraud. If the public would see a serious effort to elimination of abuse and fraud them the cuts many not have to be so deep.
  Cut to just cut without correcting the abuse first will only lead to addition fraud and the same old same old situation. Clean the house before cut the power off
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;679052 wrote:The first step into SS, Medicare and Welfare is to be serious about fraud within the organization and with those creating fraud. If the public would see a serious effort to elimination of abuse and fraud them the cuts many not have to be so deep.
  Cut to just cut without correcting the abuse first will only lead to addition fraud and the same old same old situation. Clean the house before cut the power off

  
  Completely agree Belly. Now, show me an influential politician saying that and we'd be set. I haven't see one though.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  So, Education went up, I'm actually against this. Pell Grants, while important, should have stayed the same. The rest should have been the same or reduced.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406643_pf.html
  
  On Transportation, I like it as it provides multiyear for projects to fix the aging Transportation system:
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406640.html
  
  I also like adding to the National Science Foundation: A key for our future now a days: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406610.html
  
  On Energy, most of that is the Nuclear Weapons budget increase, but some of the stuff on electric cars is alright:
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406633.html
  
  But, I am disappointed the President didn't tackle the big 3. However, he could simply be waiting for R's to make the first move.
• tk421

  

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget
  

  Despite its savings, Obama's budget projects a record $1.65 trillion deficit this year, falling to $1.1 trillion next year and easing thereafter. Even so, it stands to generate a mammoth $7.2 trillion sea of red ink over the next 10 years, a number that would be even larger had the president not claimed over $1 trillion in 10-year savings by winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  Yeah, Obama has really taken the budget deficit into heart. I don't call adding another whopping 7 Trillion in debt a step in the right direction. Look at this little ditty and tell me we are moving in the right direction.
  

  By 2021, Obama projects that $844 billion out of the $5.7 trillion federal budget would go toward paying interest on the government's debt. Such interest payments would exceed the size of the entire federal budget in 1983.

  That's right, in 10 more years the federal budget is going to be close to an absolutely staggering 6 TRILLION dollars. This is clearly the way this country needs to go. Lets make the budget 3X the amount we take in in taxes. How can anyone defend this is beyond me.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Again, 80% of the budget are four programs: SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Pentagon.
  Pentagon went down, but all the others went up-hence the budget went up.
  The money quote this morning from Morning Joe:
  Joe Scarborough: "When it comes to touching these three programs [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid], President Obama is a coward, politically. And it is impacting Republicans on the Hill, who are cowards politically as well. While this country economically burns, they are doing absolutely nothing."
  
  Even during his Press conference the President said he is waiting on the R's to offer solutions. Thing is the President needs to man up and offer his solutions.
• tk421

  

  Where's the change? Seems like Obama is the same coward politician like the rest of them. Democrats who voted for him got suckered.
• jhay78

  

  Republicans don't even have to talk about actual cuts in SS to get roasted by Dems. If they even dare to mention scaling back COLA's, they get blasted.
  
  I find it ironic that programs created by Dems, lauded by Dems, and paraded as great American success stories by Dems, are supposed to be fixed (at great political consequence) by Republicans. Obama and the Dems don't have to fix it because nobody in the mainstream media holds them accountable.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ptown_trojans_1;679337 wrote:Again, 80% of the budget are four programs: SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Pentagon.
  Pentagon went down, but all the others went up-hence the budget went up.
  The money quote this morning from Morning Joe:
  Joe Scarborough: "When it comes to touching these three programs [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid], President Obama is a coward, politically. And it is impacting Republicans on the Hill, who are cowards politically as well. While this country economically burns, they are doing absolutely nothing."
  
  Even during his Press conference the President said he is waiting on the R's to offer solutions. Thing is the President needs to man up and offer his solutions.

  
  If the President had his way he would add some more programs to those four, but he knows he would have zero chance of getting reelected if he did.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jhay78;679370 wrote:Republicans don't even have to talk about actual cuts in SS to get roasted by Dems. If they even dare to mention scaling back COLA's, they get blasted.
  
  I find it ironic that programs created by Dems, lauded by Dems, and paraded as great American success stories by Dems, are supposed to be fixed (at great political consequence) by Republicans. Obama and the Dems don't have to fix it because nobody in the mainstream media holds them accountable.

  
  I think most people blame both parties for the mess.
  I'll give W credit, back in 2005 he tried to reform SS, but got killed on the Hill, and his plan died.
  
  The reason why R's are getting tasked with fixing the big three is if they want to tackle the debt, they have to tackle those issues.
  R's are in power now, so they need to offer solutions. The D's are weak on it, really.
• BGFalcons82

  

  jhay78;679370 wrote:I find it ironic that programs created by Dems, lauded by Dems, and paraded as great American success stories by Dems, are supposed to be fixed (at great political consequence) by Republicans. Obama and the Dems don't have to fix it because nobody in the mainstream media holds them accountable.

  
  Excellent point, jhay! Funny how programs, such as the "Great Society" of LBJ, have had their yokes placed around the necks of the party that didn't want them to begin with.
  
  And ptown... "R's are in power now, so they need to offer solutions." Ummm....did the R's overtake the Senate and White House in the past hour or so? :rolleyes:
• stlouiedipalma

  Perhaps the Speaker will come up with the official Republican budget plan, one which will tackle the Big Three specifically and help start real job creation.
  
  The reason that the Republicans are expected to step up with a real alternative is because they've talked shit for two years now, it's time to show their cards.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;679421 wrote:Excellent point, jhay! Funny how programs, such as the "Great Society" of LBJ, have had their yokes placed around the necks of the party that didn't want them to begin with.
  
  And ptown... "R's are in power now, so they need to offer solutions." Ummm....did the R's overtake the Senate and White House in the past hour or so? :rolleyes:

  
  Well, ok, they are in charge of the House-which is where all budget items start. Sorry.
  The Senate is a different beast. The 60 vote rule requires both parties to come to agreement.
  
  I guess my whole point is that someone, anyone, of influence is going to have to have the balls to offer real solutions to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  ptown_trojans_1;679337 wrote:Again, 80% of the budget are four programs: SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Pentagon.....

  Didn't he choose to add another that if it survives could exceed all of these in cost, debt, and drain on resources(Obamacare)?
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;679391 wrote:I think most people blame both parties for the mess.
  I'll give W credit, back in 2005 he tried to reform SS, but got killed on the Hill, and his plan died.
  
  The reason why R's are getting tasked with fixing the big three is if they want to tackle the debt, they have to tackle those issues.
  R's are in power now, so they need to offer solutions. The D's are weak on it, really.

  
  Yeah, that's true. I've seen some pretty good stuff from Paul Ryan; I'm curious how the House Republicans will respond.
  
  I can already see the campaign ads for 2012 congressional seats: "So and so (insert opponent of Democrat here) voted to throw our elderly out in the streets by making cuts to (or scaling back automatic increases in) Social Security. Vote for me."