Page 22 of 47 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 466

Thread: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

  1. #211
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    As I read through this thread, I wonder if those who oppose Pres. Obama really "listened" to his press conference and not take their cue from the Fox News article from the OP alone. The President made a few things very clear:

    Pell Grants. Ending summer class financing since the award level for this education grant program had already been raised and the sole purpose for implementing the summer education expenditures was to provide financial aid to under privelaged college students during the economic downturn. Since the economy is improving, funding for summer education programs under Pell Grants is no longer necessary.

    Entitlement Programs.

    Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road. A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.

    Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.

    Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.

    Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks. The irony here is Conservatives have been complaining about earmarks and pork barrel spending for years and the one time a Liberal/Centrist President stands firm against earmarks, now it's a bad thing to stand firm against?

    Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP. You spend only up to what revenues you take in. Ummm...makes sense to me.... (And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!)

    Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years. Therefore, there's little his budget can do to address that problem now. Congress will have to deal with that issue when the time comes.

    Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-16-11 at 06:51 PM.

  2. #212
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    As I read through this thread, I wonder if those who oppose Pres. Obama really "listened" to his press conference and not take their cue from the Fox News article from the OP alone. The President made a few things very clear:

    Pell Grants. Ending summer class financing since the award level for this education grant program had already been raised and the sole purpose for implementing the summer education expenditures was to provide financial aid to under privelaged college students during the economic downturn. Since the economy is improving, funding for summer education programs under Pell Grants is no longer necessary.

    Entitlement Programs.

    Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road. A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.

    Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.

    Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.

    Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks. The irony here is Conservatives have been complaining about earmarks and pork barrel spending for years and the one time a Liberal/Centrist President stands firm against earmarks, now it's a bad thing to stand firm against?

    Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP. You spend only up to what revenues you take in. Ummm...makes sense to me.... (And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!)

    Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years. Therefore, there's little his budget can do to address that problem now. Congress will have to deal with that issue when the time comes.

    Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
    What this President doesn't seem to understand is that much of his budget is also funded at the state and local levels thus duplicated a few times over and that makes no sense. As I have posted many times before the individual line items in the Federal budget but those are ignored by the Obama supporters. This President doesn't seem to ahve a clue as to how the private sector works and the actual role of the federal govt.

    SS and Medicare have been "borrowed" for decades starting with LBJ putting it on budget to fund the Vietnam War and Great Society. There are over 2.5 trillion in IOU's that are coming due and have to be funded. Where is the money coming from?

    Since when does GDP have any role in what the govt. should or should not spend? Comparing govt spending as a percent of GDP is absolutely irresponsible and ignorant. This is a private sector economy and much of the GDP(2/3) is consumer spending. What role does the Federal govt. play in consumer spending? That argument makes zero sense, explain it please?

    Interest in the debt is a yearly expense. Countries that loan us money expect to be paid, You can postpone payments to American bond holders by stretching out the bonds but not foreign countries. We have a lot of debt for a long period of time so there is always debt coming due.

    Oh the fear of Obama vetoing the GOP budgets! I assure you those budgets will not have earmarks but will have bigger spending cuts that Obama wants.

  3. #213
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    [QUOTE=Boo Radley;1059289106]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post

    I'm retracting nothing. At, like NRO, often link valid sources, but are inaccurate in their conclusions.
    Inaccurate according to your opinion. As far as inaccurate, you've provided no evidence they're inaccurate nor "wild" whatever that means, therefore your accusation is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No where I know of, which makes your market comment questionable, not mine.
    You asked a question with a qualifier - there's no reason nor any requirement for a totally free market, therefore your question was also irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    To be honest, based on this response by you, I'm not sure what you are claiming or what you think I'm claiming. To claim that competition makes things better, we must look and see things better.
    What does that mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Being accessable, be it medicine or access to care, is something that is better than not having those things. Competition here has not improved access.
    And competition is still not connected to availability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    If you don't have access, you don't have quality care.
    Access does not guarantee quality care, and the single payer model as it has applied in other countries identifies a loss of quality care at the expense of accessibility to all as well as longer waiting times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, the amrket, and compeititon have failed those who cannot access it.
    That's like saying food and nutrition have failed to those who cannot eat. Isn't that obvious? It's not the foods fault, it's not the nutrition's fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You make another leap. I have no such wish and nothing I speak of subjugates me in any way.
    I can only assume such a thing as your do not want an effective military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And no where have I asked for in efficient military.
    You claimed you wanted a "less effective military" did you not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I've actually asked for the opposite. Using a hammer when a scalpel is needed is ineffecient.
    Less effective meaning more effective????? When it comes to military - a sledge hammers is all that is ever needed, the scaple nonsense you lifted from Obama who personally knows little of the military other than what his Generals tell him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What you think is meaning less to history. I stand by what I said.
    It's only as meaningless as applied to what your standing by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, you misread it. that is not what happened. We intered into things like VN that we did not have to enter into.
    VN was not a world war. WWI and WWII were world wars and I'm not misreading anything, the risk is greater in your scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I do pay a progressive tax and I'm fine with it.
    You don't pay more as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    How do you know I don't? we can say anything on the internet, but how would you ever know?
    Because I know human nature, and people don't pay more if they aren't forced to. If you do, please post evidence of it - removing all of your personal information of course.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #214
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Inaccurate according to your opinion. As far as inaccurate, you've provided no evidence they're inaccurate nor "wild" whatever that means, therefore your accusation is irrelevant.
    I was speaking to a perason with a history. We've gone down the road many times before, but I did give you an example where there is a thread, and a link.

    You asked a question with a qualifier - there's no reason nor any requirement for a totally free market, therefore your question was also irrelevant.
    Try taking all the sentences together and making meaning. It helps when you do that.

    What does that mean?
    It means what it said. You've lost me completely, but if you sing the praises of competition and the free market, related to health care, you must show that they make things better. Access is a place to start. Starting there, the market and competition have failed. This is not rocket science.

    And competition is still not connected to availability.
    Yes, it is. There is nothing for those who do not have access.

    Access does not guarantee quality care, and the single payer model as it has applied in other countries identifies a loss of quality care at the expense of accessibility to all as well as longer waiting times.
    You're right it doesn't. But those who have access have more quaility than those who don't have access. ideally, we want quality and access. BTW, competition doesn't assure quality either. Mass production has at times brought about inferior products, not to mention cut rate efforts for poorer markets.

    That's like saying food and nutrition have failed to those who cannot eat. Isn't that obvious? It's not the foods fault, it's not the nutrition's fault.
    No, more like saying those who are starving are OK because rich folks eat very well. No matter how good their food is, those who aren't able to afford to eat won't care.

    I can only assume such a thing as your do not want an effective military.
    Again, no such thing has been argued or stated by me. You are clearly arguing with someone else, or perhaps a strawman.

    You claimed you wanted a "less effective military" did you not?
    No I never did. There may be a typo someone where, but I'm sure any reading for comprehension woudl knwo I did not argue for any such thing.

    Less effective meaning more effective????? When it comes to military - a sledge hammers is all that is ever needed, the scaple nonsense you lifted from Obama who personally knows little of the military other than what his Generals tell him.
    That would be in correct. Different jobs require different tools. having the right tools for the right situation is called being effective.

    It's only as meaningless as applied to what your standing by.
    ????? Well, as I explained why, this sounds you agree with me.

    VN was not a world war. WWI and WWII were world wars and I'm not misreading anything, the risk is greater in your scenario.
    If you understand that, you may come to understand your error.

    You don't pay more as you claim.
    Of course I pay more than some. Our tax is progressive and some make less than I do.

    Because I know human nature, and people don't pay more if they aren't forced to. If you do, please post evidence of it - removing all of your personal information of course.
    I'm not convinced you do.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #215
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road.
    social security went upside down a few weeks ago, years ahead of schedule

    My Way News - Social Security now seen to run permanent deficits

    it had been expected to sink under-red in 2016, with the baby boomers

    why do you think bowles-simpson, the president's cowardly default for 2 years, makes such draconian recommendations to soc sec?

    Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

    raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, means testing, raising the ceiling---they're ALL there

    a program in that massive a need of fix---tens of T's---is a jovian sized failure

    soc sec is a total flop, the biggest boondoggle this side of red china

    A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.
    budget writers are also required to look at the outyears, specifically how our current borrowing will impact future blueprints

    obama's budget relies on completely unrealistic growth rates and unsustainable interest rates to jimmy his projections down, even geithner called him out

    President Obama's budget kicks the hard choices further down the road

    obama's 2012 budget projects an increase in deficit spending of thirty percent over last year's rueful record

    Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.
    oh, please

    i'd have too many links to burden this thread with

    let's just say---tell it to bowles and simpson

    Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.
    we're gonna defund planned parenthood and the cpb, we're gonna strip and emasculate the epa

    get ready for it

    Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks.
    he aint gonna veto squat, he's entirely too weak and isolated

    in other words, way too many democrats are gonna back CUTS

    Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP.
    he said?

    LOL!

    you're way too nice a person, life is gonna take advantage of you

    And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!
    make our day

    we'll do it in exchange for letting him raise the debt ceiling (so long as it cuts pp, cpb, epa, implemenation...)

    Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years.
    a big problem the fed is having is trying to "refinance short term debt at higher interest rates for the long term"

    http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articl...row-54335.aspx

    Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
    try us

  6. #216
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Obamas 2012 budget is 13% more than Bush's 2009 budget.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  7. #217
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    the by-now world famous university of virginia study cited by the asa finds that after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, united states patients with NO INSURANCE actually receive better care than folks on medicaid

    ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

    get real

    and grow up

  8. #218
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    The real joke is that the GOP has not shown any real budget proposal. This means, while they have stated that they are not willing to raise revenues (more likely to lower it), they have shown no path to decreasing expenditures.

    How can anyone be mad at raising taxes on the rich and then cry about the deficit?

  9. #219
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    How can anyone be mad at raising taxes on the rich and then cry about the deficit?
    ask obama

    Obama Calls Tax Cuts the 'Right Thing to Do'

    ask bubba

    At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

  10. #220
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama's FY 2012 Budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I was speaking to a perason with a history. We've gone down the road many times before, but I did give you an example where there is a thread, and a link.
    No thread - no link, and you mentioned the Weekly Standard which is not AT. So again, irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Try taking all the sentences together and making meaning. It helps when you do that.
    In what other language because it doesn't work in English.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It means what it said. You've lost me completely, but if you sing the praises of competition and the free market, related to health care, you must show that they make things better. Access is a place to start. Starting there, the market and competition have failed. This is not rocket science.
    Wrong. You're singing the praises of a Single Payer health system, so it's incumbent on YOU to show it makes things better. I'm simply stating the obvious falsehoods of a Single Payer health system and have provided the reasons why a bureaucratic system will fail and have failed. You brought up free markets not me. You've not bothered to defend the obvious failure of a single payer system so I can only assume there is no defense, therefore your red herring about competition and accessibility is a complete failure. I'm not biting on the obvious distraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, it is. There is nothing for those who do not have access.
    All people have access today. There is no law, no force preventing access.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You're right it doesn't. But those who have access have more quaility than those who don't have access.
    See prior post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    BTW, competition doesn't assure quality either. Mass production has at times brought about inferior products, not to mention cut rate efforts for poorer markets.
    Competition provides quality, as those private businesses who do not perform are not used, and go out of business. As well, the more competition there is, the higher the quality of said products, and the less likely for mediocre products. But this is old news... from 2006:

    Quote Originally Posted by Quality and Competition: An Empirical Analysis Across Industries
    Using ordinal quality rankings from Consumer Reports and controlling for price
    dispersion, industry, firm, and product type effects, we find that, in general, as the level of
    concentration within an industry increases, the probability of observing a poor, fair, or good
    quality product decreases and the probability of observing a very good or excellent product
    increases.
    http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea...1/wp060420.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, no such thing has been argued or stated by me. You are clearly arguing with someone else, or perhaps a strawman...
    No I never did. There may be a typo someone where, but I'm sure any reading for comprehension woudl knwo I did not argue for any such thing.
    Look back at post #207, middle of the page, it's right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.
    Apparently you have short term memory loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    That would be in correct. Different jobs require different tools. having the right tools for the right situation is called being effective.
    So going back to your previous statement, you then believe a less effective military is the right tool? Yet, I still have to go back to your single payer statement --- you want healthcare to be more efficient, but the military to be less effective, and you don't deny saying that....

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    ????? Well, as I explained why, this sounds you agree with me.
    Yes I agree your statment was meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    If you understand that, you may come to understand your error.
    My error was assuming you could carry on a conversation. You apparently didn't know Vietnam was not a World War, yet you ignore WWI and WWII and you do not address the risk as I've pointed it out. Therefore not only are incorrect but you've been misled - and tragically so. I hope you've learned your lesson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    Of course I pay more than some.
    I never asked if you pay more than some.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    Our tax is progressive and some make less than I do.
    Who is stating the current tax system is NOT progressive?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    I'm not convinced you do.
    I'm convinced you cannot debate a point without ignoring facts. So I guess we're not going to see an evidence then?

    I'm shocked... really... just shocked.
    Last edited by Ockham; 02-16-11 at 09:13 PM.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 22 of 47 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •