Obama unveils record $3.8 trillion budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXgolfer said:
I chose not to give it credibilty by answering......

Moving on..........
Click to expand...

Ah, can't refute it because you can't. Gotcha.
 
TXgolfer said:
I chose not to give it credibilty by answering......

Moving on..........
Click to expand...

How can you give a blog credibility by refuting it?

By not refuting it, you are giving it credibility.
 
Banjo said:
Oh dear, not the recess bit. Didn't think you would resort to that one so fast.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal......merely in reference to your quote that reminds of a playground taunt. (i know them.....I used to give them when I was young) I have stated my opinion. I will call out citings from biased blogs when given as evidence. I will not dignify this blog with debate. If this is not to your liking I suggest you ignore my posts.

I was nice about this and stated my opinion right off the bat. You have chosen to troll and bait. I am not taking the bait.
 
netrox said:
This article explains so well:

The White House has proposed a $3.8-trillion budget for the fiscal year 2011, which begins Oct. 1. What is the projected deficit, and how does that compare with past years?

The deficit is estimated at $1.27 trillion in 2011 -- down from a record $1.56 trillion in the current year. The deficit -- the gap between budget outlays and tax receipts -- was $1.41 trillion in 2009, more than triple the previous high of $458.6 billion in 2008. Except for four years (1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001), the federal government has run a deficit consistently since 1970.

In the longer run, what are the deficit projections?

In the president's budget forecasts, the deficit would fall to $828 billion in fiscal 2012 and dip further to a decade low of $706 billion in 2014.

What's causing the trillion-dollar-plus deficits from fiscal years 2009 to 2011?

Despite widespread perceptions that economic stimulus spending and government bailouts of troubled financial institutions are largely behind the ballooning deficits, those temporary programs actually account for only a fraction of the budget shortfall.

The primary factors are long-standing imbalances between taxes and spending, plus the deep recession that reduced tax revenue and increased outlays for safety net programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps.

With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending for national defense has surged about 140% since 2000 -- to $722.1 billion projected in 2010. Government spending for Medicare has gone up even faster in the last decade, to $462.1 billion in 2010. At the same time, personal income taxes were cut earlier in the decade under the George W. Bush administration.

How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - latimes.com

Dick Cheney said, "deficits don't matter." Yea! Spend and burn!

"In our time, the Republican Party has compiled an impressive history of talking about fiscal responsibility while running up unrivaled deficits and debt. Of the roughly $11 trillion in federal debt accumulated to date, more than 90 percent can be attributed to the tenure of three presidents: Ronald Reagan, who used to complain constantly about runaway spending; George Herbert Walker Bush, reputed to be one of those old-fashioned green-eyeshade Republicans; and his spendthrift son George "Dubya" Bush, whose trillion-dollar war and irresponsible tax cuts accounted for nearly half the entire burden. Only Bill Clinton temporarily reversed the trend with surpluses and started to pay down the debt (by raising rates on the wealthiest taxpayers)."

Joe Conason - Salon.com
Click to expand...

here's rebuttal to your argument. see below -
 
Not everyone wants the Bush tax rates to expire.
In Democratic Washington, it's supposed to be an article of faith that the Bush tax cuts "on the rich" were a disaster and must be allowed to expire at the end of this year. However, that means socking the economy with a record tax hike next January 1, and some Democrats are beginning to have second thoughts.

Harry Mitchell, a second-term Congressman from Arizona, wrote President Obama last week to urge him to extend the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends that will revert to 20% and 39.6%, respectively, next year. He also doesn't want the 55% confiscatory rate on estates restored, as it also would be in 2011.

"Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation," Mr. Mitchell wrote.

Those sensible words are echoed by Gerry Connolly of Virginia, who told Dow Jones Newswires that "I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery," adding that "it's a question of prudent judgment and timing."

That timing also includes November Congressional elections which may be contested amid a very high national jobless rate, if not still 10%. Republicans are certain to tell voters the unfortunate truth that Democrats are determined to raise their taxes, despite what has so far been a less than roaring recovery.

You don't have to be a supply-sider to wonder about the wisdom of raising taxes amid a fragile economy, and once upon a time even Keynesians favored tax cuts as economic stimulus. Walter Heller helped to write JFK's tax cuts, and current White House chief economist Christina Romer has done economic research showing the superiority of tax cutting over spending as fiscal stimulus. That was before she sat in the White House mess.

Alas, these continue to be voices in the Democratic wilderness, and Secretary Tim Geithner recently squashed any suggestion that all of the Bush tax rates could be saved. Voters certainly deserve a good tax debate this fall.
Click to expand...

tax cuts help. raising tax will not reduce national debt. that's why Democrats are proposing to extend Bush's tax cuts
 
Public Stimulus Funds Spent on Private Wine Train
California has been hit hard during the recession, so there's no question why federal stimulus dollars are being spent there. Yet one project -- $54 million for renovations of railroad track used solely by a privately-owned "wine train" -- has some in Congress questioning how they're being spent.

"What that is, is a situation where you see the wealthy or well connected get taken care of and the community suffers," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The project is called the Napa Valley Wine Relocation Project, and the money will be spent to build a new rail bridge, elevate and relocate a total of 3,300 feet of track and put flood walls around the main station for the Napa Valley Wine Train, an antique train that runs on 25 miles of track and features a restaurant and restored vintage train cars.

The project was cited in a report by Coburn and fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona as one of the 100 most questionable stimulus projects.

The owners of the train also own the tracks, but they say they aren't getting any money.

"If that report had been thoroughly researched, we wouldn't have been on it," Napa Valley Wine Train spokeswoman Melody Hilton said. "We are not receiving the money nor are we a significant financial beneficiary of the project."

The funds were given to the Army Corps of Engineers as part of a larger flood control plan designed to protect the City of Napa from floods like the one that devastated the city in 2005.

But while the train owners aren't getting any money directly, the tracks, the station and the rail bridge are all used solely by the wine train.

Barry Martin, a spokesman for the project, said the last time the tracks were used for anything other than the Wine Train was in the 1970s.

"It would have been the 1970s when Southern Pacific owned this section of railroad," Martin said.

Hilton defended the use of the money for the flood-control project.

"It is not for the benefit or financial boon of the Napa Valley Wine Train. It is an enormously important community project and we are good community partners and a part of that," Hilton said.

"We employ from low season to high season around 100 to 140 [people], so we are one of Napa's more significant employers," she said.

Village Mayor Says He Would Put Funds to Other Use

The Army Corps of Engineers has contracted the project to Suulutaaq, a Native-American Alaskan corporation. The City of Napa estimates that approximately 200 jobs have been created by this project, which is expected to take two-and-a-half years to complete.

Del Britton, the mayor of St. Helena, the village the tracks run through, said that if the money had been awarded to the city, he would have spent it differently.

"We've got a lot of streets in the city that need to get paved. That's the first place it would go for sure," he said.

The roads will have to wait -- this batch of tax money is going to the train tracks.
Click to expand...

all for more reason that in order to reduce the deficit, you need to cut away the wasteful spending first, not increase the tax for the rich
 
Presidential Promises and Pretenses - Obama's contribution to the "deficit of trust"
The day before President Obama delivered his State of the Union address last week, The New York Times reported that "aides said he would accept responsibility, though not necessarily blame" for failing to deliver on promises he made during his campaign. If you accept responsibility for something bad, aren’t you accepting blame by definition? Not if you’re Barack Obama, who has a talent for accepting responsibility while minimizing and deflecting it.

“With all the lobbying and horse trading, the process [for producing health care legislation] left most Americans wondering, 'What's in it for me?'" Obama said in his SOTU speech. "I take my share of the blame." For breaking his oft-repeated promise to televise health care negotiations on C-Span? For agreeing to provisions that would benefit special interests at the expense of the general public? No. "For not explaining it more clearly to the American people"—as if the problem could have been solved with a nifty PowerPoint presentation.

At his meeting with House Republicans on Friday, Obama conceded that pointing out his failure to televise health care negotiations was "a legitimate criticism." But he also said coverage would have been hard to arrange because the negotiations occurred in several locations. Anyway, he said, "overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-Span, because it was taking place in congressional hearings"—as if he had promised that C-Span would continue its longstanding practice of covering congressional hearings.

The president is even less forthright when it comes to the fiscal responsibility he keeps promising. On Monday he declared, "We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn’t matter, as if the hard-earned tax money of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money."

Yet somehow he manages to do so. Obama's much-ballyhooed spending "freeze" would affect just one-eighth of the budget, would not begin until 2011, and would be accompanied by continued increases in outlays on the president's pet projects.

If you are serious about reducing spending, you don’t increase it. Yet Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 totals $3.8 trillion, compared to the $3.6 he proposed the previous year. The deficit would drop a bit, from a record $1.6 trillion to around $1.3 trillion, only because of increased tax revenue.

Last year Obama said the deficit, expected to be 11 percent of gross domestic product this year, would fall to a "sustainable" 3 percent by the end of his first term. His new budget projections, even with the benefit of optimistic assumptions, indicate that he will never reach that goal even if he serves two terms and that the deficit will rise above 5 percent of GDP after he leaves office.

On Friday the president blamed the economy for his fiscal incontinence, saying "most of the increases in this year's budget" were "a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession." But as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted, legislation signed by Obama increased domestic discretionary spending by 84 percent.

In addition to the health care transparency and spending restraint he has failed to deliver, Obama has broken promises to reduce the influence of special-interest lobbyists, to let people who like their current medical coverage keep it, to refrain from raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, to cut earmarks to 1994 levels, to take a more modest view of executive power and the "state secrets" privilege, to close Guantanamo by last month, to end medical marijuana raids, to allow five days of public review before signing bills, and to recognize the Armenian genocide. PolitiFact.com counts 15 broken promises so far, and its standards are conservative.

In his SOTU address, Obama bemoaned "a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years." He blamed the public's "disappointment" and "cynicism" on powerful lobbyists, reckless bankers, highly paid CEOs, superficial TV pundits, and mud-slinging politicians. Conspicuously missing from the list: a president who breaks promises while pretending he isn't.
Click to expand...

wwooooowww Obama JUST figured out that there's no more money to spend? somebody please take him to Economy 101 class please. :roll:
 
I'm done :cool2:
 
Ah, good to see that Jiro did and he wasn't even asked to in the first place.
 
TXgolfer said:
Nothing personal......merely in reference to your quote that reminds of a playground taunt. (i know them.....I used to give them when I was young) I have stated my opinion. I will call out citings from biased blogs when given as evidence. I will not dignify this blog with debate. If this is not to your liking I suggest you ignore my posts.

I was nice about this and stated my opinion right off the bat. You have chosen to troll and bait. I am not taking the bait.
Click to expand...

Troll and bait?

No, I just know you're full of it. I just don't think people should be making excuses to avoid answering questions. Just be honest. Jiro here is a honest fella and he won't beat around the bush when you ask him a question.

P.S., you did take the bait. Sorry, bud.
 
Banjo said:
Troll and bait?

No, I just know you're full of it. I just don't think people should be making excuses to avoid answering questions. Just be honest. Jiro here is a honest fella and he won't beat around the bush when you ask him a question.

P.S., you did take the bait. Sorry, bud.
Click to expand...

lol what a joke here... "Heck, no. I am not trolling and baiting..." and you say "You did take the bait" so in essence you just admitted you were lying.
 
Banjo, that whole scenario was just soooo unnecessary. Seemed out of character for you....tsk tsk Hope you're happy now.
 
Banjo said:
Troll and bait?

No, I just know you're full of it. I just don't think people should be making excuses to avoid answering questions. Just be honest. Jiro here is a honest fella and he won't beat around the bush when you ask him a question.

P.S., you did take the bait. Sorry, bud.
Click to expand...

As I have said.....You can believe what you want. That is your choice. My choice is to call Salon what it is rather than dignify it with debate.
 
Tousi said:
Banjo, that whole scenario was just soooo unnecessary. Seemed out of character for you....tsk tsk Hope you're happy now.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

You're right. It was unnecessary and out of character.

TXGolfer, my apologies to you for treating you the way I did. I know I've been snappy in the past couple days, although that's all over now for the time being. Regardless, it's no excuse for talking to you the way I did.

Sorry bud.
 
Banjo said:
*sigh*

You're right. It was unnecessary and out of character.

TXGolfer, my apologies to you for treating you the way I did. I know I've been snappy in the past couple days, although that's all over now for the time being. Regardless, it's no excuse for talking to you the way I did.

Sorry bud.
Click to expand...

That will be a continuation of my respect for you, P.
 
Banjo said:
*sigh*

You're right. It was unnecessary and out of character.

TXGolfer, my apologies to you for treating you the way I did. I know I've been snappy in the past couple days, although that's all over now for the time being. Regardless, it's no excuse for talking to you the way I did.

Sorry bud.
Click to expand...

No problem.....It's a debate thread. It happens.
 
Someone once told me that if I cannot explain something concisely and clearly, then I do not know what the heck I am talking about.
So...regarding this thread, I will shut up. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top