• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

Its 1/6 the budget, thats a pretty good size.

That doesn't mean we should excuse how much is being spent.

It means that Obama is including defense spending in his budget.
G.W. did not do that.

What does this debate have to do with George Bush? Why is it that whenever the obvious hypocrisy and criminally negligent way this administration behaves is brought up, people automatically engage the "Bush" argument?

Bush spent us into a $200 billion deficit; so what? Obama has spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit without a single debate about how to pay for it and with irrationally optimistic and farcical economic projections that are fictitiously used to suggest this adminstration will cut this deficit in half in four years.

I cannot willfully suspend my disbelief enough to swallow the hogwash being dished out by Democrats on this topic.

:roll:
 
It just blows my mind the amount of money our government spends. And the price tag that goes along with it. Because it takes almost a quarter of a billion dollars to just 'promote' literacy, according to our budget-wizards in government. And where the **** is that money going anyway? Have you seen anything promoting literacy lately? Anyone? Because I sure as hell haven't.

I do applaud Bush for trying to end that program and now Obama for atleast cutting that budget, but it's obviously our blood sucking congress, that won't end the program, that is pocketing the money. Change, change, change them and it's just a horse of a different color.
 
What does this debate have to do with George Bush? Why is it that whenever the obvious hypocrisy and criminally negligent way this administration behaves is brought up, people automatically engage the "Bush" argument?

Bush spent us into a $200 billion deficit; so what? Obama has spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit without a single debate about how to pay for it and with irrationally optimistic and farcical economic projections that are fictitiously used to suggest this adminstration will cut this deficit in half in four years.

I cannot willfully suspend my disbelief enough to swallow the hogwash being dished out by Democrats on this topic.

:roll:

He was just making a point that defense spending is included in his budget.

I was making a valid comparison that if you include defense spending in G.W. 's budget it would increase the size of it by a large degree.

Obama is including defense spending on the wars in his budget.

To make a more valid comparison tot he size of each budget you would either have to remove war spending from Obama's budget and compare it to GW's or include war spending in GW's and compare it to Obama.

That is the only rational, fair way to compare spending between administrations.

For the record I am neither a GW fan nor an Obama fan.

Khayembii brought up a valid observation and I could sense the dog pile of Repub's that won't even consider his point.
 
The laughable denial so far is that Obama found $17 billion in savings; how is this even remotely going to pay for the deficit.

Let's assume for the moment that he actually does intend to make further cuts.

Were I in his shoes, I would do something just like this. With the current democratic congress, he'd face an uphill battle were he to make more dramatic cuts.

And I think it's an apt statement when he says, "“For every dollar we seek to save there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent,” the president said. “That’s how unnecessary programs survive year after year. That’s how budgets swell.”

If there were an actual strategy at work here, it might not be unwise to start with a smaller amount that wouldn't face as much opposition, to get them used to the idea.

Then again, this may just be another of his smoke screens to placate those infuriated by the spending. While I don't entirely share all your negative views on Obama, he does seem to be all over the map and is adept at creating distractions that take the focus off of his shortcomings.
 
Last edited:
He was just making a point that defense spending is included in his budget.

I was making a valid comparison that if you include defense spending in G.W. 's budget it would increase the size of it by a large degree.

Obama is including defense spending on the wars in his budget.

To make a more valid comparison tot he size of each budget you would either have to remove war spending from Obama's budget and compare it to GW's or include war spending in GW's and compare it to Obama.

That is the only rational, fair way to compare spending between administrations.

For the record I am neither a GW fan nor an Obama fan.

Khayembii brought up a valid observation and I could sense the dog pile of Repub's that won't even consider his point.

What does ANY comparison of Bush's Presidency have to do with the current level of irresponsible spending we are witnessing from this Administration and Congress?

I am hardly dog piling on anyone or being disrespectful of your opinion or Khay's, I am asking, what is the relevance of even attempting to compare what happened in the previous administration with what is happening now?

Regardless of whether an item is ON budget, or OFF, a deficit is a deficit no matter how you attempt to define it; it is when EXPENDITURES exceed REVENUES and it doesn't matter if it INCLUDED in the BUDGET which is nothing more than a GUESS, or NOT.

I find it amazing when people always attempt to point at Bush when he is no longer in charge and we are dealing with the HERE and NOW.
 
You are correct; Bush spent us into a $200 billion deficit dealing with 9-11, fighting two wars and the devastation of a Democrat run city that was ill prepared.

Obama just throws the money at Liberal programs intended to increase the span and control of Government without even a debate as to how to pay for it all.

Let's not also forget that while Bush was in office, Liberals chastised him for spending away the surplus for daring to allow/permit the citizens of this nation to keep MORE of their own money.

While spending this nation into a $1.8 trillion hole, not one Liberal chastised him for a tax giveaway.

Hypocrisy is the rule of the day when it comes to Democrats. :roll:

A couple points. First, as a liberal, I criticized President Bush not for giving tax cuts, but for giving tax cuts before we had paid off the debt. Tax cuts should, ideally, be a reward for fixing the deficit and debt. Note that I think Obama's tax cuts where also a mistake for the same reason, and because the extra tax savings is not going to have a significant imp[act on the economy. I save enough from Obama's tax cuts to afford an extra pack of cigarettes a week, which is not going to really stimulate the economy, especially since I am giving almost all of the tax cut back to the government when I buy that pack.

Secondly, you failed to mention a key point, which is that Obama is dealing with a financial crisis, which Bush did not really have to do. When this crisis started, Bush was already on his way out, though I do note that Bush also threw money at the problem. This is why I say that comparing the deficit under the two is not fair, yet.
 
What does ANY comparison of Bush's Presidency have to do with the current level of irresponsible spending we are witnessing from this Administration and Congress?

There is no way to understand the size of a budget unless we compare it to the previous administrations budget.

I am hardly dog piling on anyone or being disrespectful of your opinion or Khay's, I am asking, what is the relevance of even attempting to compare what happened in the previous administration with what is happening now?

It is a valid comparison.

If a report says spending is up 50%.

50% of what? the previous administrations budget.

Regardless of whether an item is ON budget, or OFF, a deficit is a deficit no matter how you attempt to define it; it is when EXPENDITURES exceed REVENUES and it doesn't matter if it INCLUDED in the BUDGET which is nothing more than a GUESS, or NOT.

Expenditures have been exceeding revenues for a long, long time.

This is nothing new.

I find it amazing when people always attempt to point at Bush when he is no longer in charge and we are dealing with the HERE and NOW.

It used to make comparisons. see above.
 
Its 1/6 the budget, thats a pretty good size.
My point was that:
-The fraction of the total went from 1/5 to 1/6 because total spending went up, not becauise defense spending went down;
-The % of defense spending, or the supposed allocatiuon of funds for the 'occupation' of Iraq/Afghanistan is irrelevant to the ssue at hand.

It means that Obama is including defense spending in his budget.
G.W. did not do that.
It doesnt look like Obama is either.
 
Last edited:
:rofl From the same article from the New York Times which helped drag this Community Organizer across the finish line to become President:

While the $17 billion in projected savings represents a small portion of the proposed budget, Mr. Obama insisted that “that’s a lot of money, even by Washington standards.” It was enough to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students, for larger Pell education grants, he said, “with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks.”

“For every dollar we seek to save there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent,” the president said. “That’s how unnecessary programs survive year after year. That’s how budgets swell.”

But, he added, “We cannot accept business as usual.”


You cannot be THIS President and make THESE assertions and not laugh your ass off. :rofl

So what you're saying is tax cut proposals are irrelevant? Isn't that what you think ought to happen?
 
Let's assume for the moment that he actually does intend to make further cuts.

Just as it is completely inane to assume this country can "conserve" or "green" its way to energy independence; it is absurd bordering on retarded to assume that one can "CUT waste" their way to a balanced budget.

This isn't just about how reckless and criminally negligent this Administration and Democrats controlling Government spending, this is about the desperate effort to avoid any honesty with the American people about how they will PAY for it for purely partisan political reasons.

The Obama Administration is already developing a strategy to renege on the tiny pathetic pandering tax credits he was offering up to the poorest among us who were stupid enough to vote for Obama.


Then again, this may just be another of his smoke screens to placate those infuriated by the spending. While I don't entirely share all your negative views on Obama, he does seem to be all over the map and is adept at creating distractions that take the focus off of his shortcomings.

Now you are getting closer to the TRUTH. :2wave:

By the way, I do not hate the man; I hate his politics! From a purely personal standpoint, his wife has exhibited grace in the office, his kids are darlings and he is definitely an intelligent and astute POLITICIAN, but his efforts to move this country way to the LEFT using divisive partisan populist rhetoric and being dishonest about how to pay for it are what anger me.

But then, I was under NO delusions about what this man was going to do and intended to do to this country when he got into office. My current efforts are to point them out to the millions who still continue to fawn over his idiotic and patently naïve notions about foreign policy and economics.
 
Last edited:
My point was that:
-The fraction of the total went from 1/5 to 1/6 because total spending went up, not becauise defense spending went down;
-The % of defense spending, or the supposed allocatiuon of funds for the 'occupation' of Iraq/Afghanistan is irrelevant to the ssue at hand.


It doesnt look like Obama is either.

I'm not arguing that the spending is good first off.

I think K makes a valid point and that some people here like to dismiss it.

Thats really all it is for me.
 
Secondly, you failed to mention a key point, which is that Obama is dealing with a financial crisis, which Bush did not really have to do.
You don't recall the recession Bush inhereted from Clinton?
It was 'the worst economy in 50 years' according to some.
 
I'm not arguing that the spending is good first off.

I think K makes a valid point and that some people here like to dismiss it.
I'm still trying to figure out how the point is relevant/valid.
 
The laughable denial so far is that Obama found $17 billion in savings; how is this even remotely going to pay for the deficit.

That's 17 billion in 3 months. If he keeps up at just that pace, it would mean over 250 billion over a 4 year term, which is significant. Further, if I was looking at cutting the budget, I would not just hack and slash, eliminate this program, cut that programs budget by 50 %, I would take some time and investigate, find those programs that are least efficient, have the lowest return on the dollar, that are outdated, or bloated bureaucracies(ok, this one is probably almost all government programs), and make my cuts in these places. To do that takes time, and Obama has not had the time to do it yet. I am not sure that he is going to do it, but I am hopeful, though somewhat worried.
 
You don't recall the recession Bush inhereted from Clinton?
It was 'the worst economy in 50 years' according to some.

And this one is significantly worse than that one.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how the point is relevant/valid.

What K said said:
It should be noted that while the Bush administration did not allocate funding within their budgets for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has (although I haven't reviewed this budget so I am not sure how much they have allocated).

EDIT: I just checked the budget and the Department of Defense has been allocated $533.7 billion, which is like 1/6 of the total budget.

To make valid comparisons of spending levels we must adjust numbers to accurately reflect the actual spending vs the reported spending.

Thats about it.
 
To make valid comparisons of spending levels we must adjust numbers to accurately reflect the actual spending vs the reported spending.
Thats about it.
So, his post has NO relevance the issue at hand. Thanks.
 
A couple points. First, as a liberal, I criticized President Bush not for giving tax cuts, but for giving tax cuts before we had paid off the debt. Tax cuts should, ideally, be a reward for fixing the deficit and debt. Note that I think Obama's tax cuts where also a mistake for the same reason, and because the extra tax savings is not going to have a significant imp[act on the economy. I save enough from Obama's tax cuts to afford an extra pack of cigarettes a week, which is not going to really stimulate the economy, especially since I am giving almost all of the tax cut back to the government when I buy that pack.

In other words, the Obama tax cuts are political pandering and nothing more. You are beginning to go into the light; this is a good thing. :cool:

Secondly, you failed to mention a key point, which is that Obama is dealing with a financial crisis, which Bush did not really have to do. When this crisis started, Bush was already on his way out, though I do note that Bush also threw money at the problem. This is why I say that comparing the deficit under the two is not fair, yet.

I am aware of the fabricated "financial crises" and the ramifications it can have on the political landscape.

The issue here is that the fear mongering used by Democrats, their willing media and Obama was not intended to actually confront the effects and causes of the "crises", but rather seen as an opportunity to spend the American people into a $1.8 trillion deficit in an effort to promote a Liberal agenda that could not have been done through honest debate.

Why do I make this claim contrary to some "respected" economists and business leaders? Because I wasn't born yesterday and can recall far worse situations during the Carter years.

The other reason is that I know that such illogical Keynesian efforts to use the backs of the American taxpayer to promote a LIBERAL agenda and spend us into TRILLION dollar deficits will do NOTHING to make the economy better, but rather exacerbate the problems of unemployment, investment, capital formation and consumer spending because once we get the BILL for this largess and misguided partisan policies, the economy will sink even further into the abyss.

What you get when you allow Government to decide who the economic winners should be and promoting them by re-distributing wealth to achieve it and spend us into deficits is capital flight (which is the engine of any economy), inflationary pressures due to the vast increase of the money supply and sinking the country further into DEBT with the interest burdens imposed by such out of control borrowing.

These are of course OPINIONS based on my education and 55 years living experience, but I am perfectly happy to put MY best guess against Obama's any day of the week.

Ask yourself this; where in any of these debates are these professed 5,000,000 (of course forgetting that the economy is still shedding jobs to the tune of more than 6,000,000 jobs) new jobs going to come from? The Government? Because so far, that is the ONLY entity that is expanding; unfortunately Government produces NOTHING and competes with the free market for scarce funds.
 
I am aware of the fabricated "financial crises" and the ramifications it can have on the political landscape.

The issue here is that the fear mongering used by Democrats, their willing media and Obama was not intended to actually confront the effects and causes of the "crises", but rather seen as an opportunity to spend the American people into a $1.8 trillion deficit in an effort to promote a Liberal agenda that could not have been done through honest debate.

Why do I make this claim contrary to some "respected" economists and business leaders? Because I wasn't born yesterday and can recall far worse situations during the Carter years.


I call bull on this. Unemployment map is a nice little map of west Michigan, with unemployment rates by county. Note that unemployment ranges from 9.6 %(Kalamazoo county) to 19.7 % in Oceana. 11 counties out of 15 shown on the map have unemployment over 12 %. Things have not been this bad in my lifetime, which stretches back to when Johnson was in office.
 
How is that not relevant?
When discussing the hugeness of the budget and the hugeness of the deficit in that budget, defense spending slipping for 1/5th of the budget ti 1/6th of the budget has no relevance at all -- because the only reason it slipped that little bit is because total spending went up.
 
If people are going to rail against something they need to accurately understand the numbers.
Yes... like how The Obama's deficit in ONE year equates to 70% of GWB's deficit in EIGHT years...
 
When discussing the hugeness of the budget and the hugeness of the deficit in that budget, defense spending slipping for 1/5th of the budget ti 1/6th of the budget has no relevance at all -- because the only reason it slipped that little bit is because total spending went up.

Meh, I'm really not in the mood to debate this.

I think it is relevant to include all expenditures when comparing budgets.

I like accuracy in reporting of numbers.
 
I call bull on this. Unemployment map is a nice little map of west Michigan, with unemployment rates by county. Note that unemployment ranges from 9.6 %(Kalamazoo county) to 19.7 % in Oceana. 11 counties out of 15 shown on the map have unemployment over 12 %. Things have not been this bad in my lifetime, which stretches back to when Johnson was in office.

While I can appreciate the desperate situation the people of Michigan are going through, they did elect Democrats for decades to run their Governments just as the citizens of California have and as a result, BOTH states suffer ABOVE average unemployment rates and HUGE deficits.

But when we debate National Politics and the state of the WHOLE economy, compared to the worst times during the Crater years, we have not reached them yet.

It is easy to look up the facts; and yet, during the Crater years we didn't have politicians fear mongering the American people to promote marching the nation deeper into debt.

When I bought my first home in 1985 I think it was, my beginning interest rate was a variable rate at 8% with a cap of 16.5%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

The national rate of unemployment during the peak of the Carter years was around 10.5% and inflation was around 10%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

Perhaps you were in a deep slumber during those years or too young to remember, but the notion that what we have been experiencing as being the worst since the depression is nothing more than fear mongering intended to promote a political agenda; in my humble, educated and experienced OPINION. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom