• 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 $3.9T budget

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Deficit reduction takes a back seat in the budget to jobs initiatives Democrats hope will be popular with voters.

The central elements of the proposal are $56 billion in new stimulus spending above the discretionary budget cap in place for next year, $302 billion in infrastructure spending over four years and a series of tax breaks for lower-income workers.

Read more: Obama releases $3.9T budget | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Click to expand...

So, business as usual. Spend more, tax more. I cant really think of anything new to say about this, since its basically the same budget he always submits and always gets laughed out of congress.
 
jonny5 said:
So, business as usual. Spend more, tax more. I cant really think of anything new to say about this, since its basically the same budget he always submits and always gets laughed out of congress.
Click to expand...

It's meant to be a starting point for negotiations. Nobody is naive enough to think that "their" budget is going to pass except the TPers.

When the GOPs reaction was that it's a "non-starter" what they're saying is that "We won't even entertain any of your ideas. This is not a starting point." Then they complain that the President won't work with them by simply doing what they want. That's the situation we're in, nobody talks to the other party, they talk at the other party.
 
rocket88 said:
It's meant to be a starting point for negotiations. Nobody is naive enough to think that "their" budget is going to pass except the TPers.

When the GOPs reaction was that it's a "non-starter" what they're saying is that "We won't even entertain any of your ideas. This is not a starting point." Then they complain that the President won't work with them by simply doing what they want. That's the situation we're in, nobody talks to the other party, they talk at the other party.
Click to expand...

Its meant to be a political statement. Even democrats know that, which is why they also ignore it.
 
rocket88 said:
It's meant to be a starting point for negotiations. Nobody is naive enough to think that "their" budget is going to pass except the TPers.

When the GOPs reaction was that it's a "non-starter" what they're saying is that "We won't even entertain any of your ideas. This is not a starting point." Then they complain that the President won't work with them by simply doing what they want. That's the situation we're in, nobody talks to the other party, they talk at the other party.
Click to expand...

Didn't Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats already announce that they wouldn't be working on a budget this year? I know, sounds like Harry being Captain Obvious, but I thought I'd read that somewhere.
 
jonny5 said:
So, business as usual. Spend more, tax more. I cant really think of anything new to say about this, since its basically the same budget he always submits and always gets laughed out of congress.
Click to expand...

I agree this is sheer political song and dance and not very realistic.

Of his $3.9 trillion budget, $2.7 trillion (70%) is for Federal Pensions, Federal Retiree Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest. Only $1.2 Trillion (30%) is for the Military and Everything Else (NASA, Roads, FBI, DEA, NSA, TSA, FDA).
Click to expand...
From the NY Times.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Didn't Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats already announce that they wouldn't be working on a budget this year? I know, sounds like Harry being Captain Obvious, but I thought I'd read that somewhere.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I read that, but it does seem pretty obvious. Even if they did, with the entire House up for re-election, there isn't going to be any compromise.
 
Of his $3.9 trillion budget, $2.7 trillion (70%) is for Federal Pensions, Federal Retiree Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest. Only $1.2 Trillion (30%) is for the Military and Everything Else (NASA, Roads, FBI, DEA, NSA, TSA, FDA).
Click to expand...
Included in that are 4 of the 5 biggest ticket items.
 
MTAtech said:
Included in that are 4 of the 5 biggest ticket items.
Click to expand...

well since 70% of the budget is eaten up with social programs not sure what else to do. at 2.7 trillion just for those we are already in deficit mode. by about 200b dollars. the government averages about 2.5 trillion in tax receipts. so much for lowering the deficit this bill soars the deficit to well over 1 trillion dollars.

yet we still can't reforms to these programs that continue to eat the federal budget.
 
ludin said:
well since 70% of the budget is eaten up with social programs not sure what else to do. at 2.7 trillion just for those we are already in deficit mode. by about 200b dollars. the government averages about 2.5 trillion in tax receipts. so much for lowering the deficit this bill soars the deficit to well over 1 trillion dollars.

yet we still can't reforms to these programs that continue to eat the federal budget.
Click to expand...
The objective of government is to provide services not see how much we can cut from the poor, elderly and disabled so we can have the rich enjoy low taxes.
 
MTAtech said:
The objective of government is to provide services not see how much we can cut from the poor, elderly and disabled so we can have the rich enjoy low taxes.
Click to expand...

The Objective of THIS Government apparently is to create more poor and "disabled ".
 
Fenton said:
The Objective of THIS Government apparently is to create more poor and "disabled ".
Click to expand...
That's just a talking point that right-wingers think if they repeat it enough it will become an unquestioned fact. Throughout most of human history the poor were left to starve and die in the streets and it didn't provide them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. Yet, conservatives contend the poor are worse off with government help.

The programs conservatives want to cut, such as Medicaid and food stamps, don’t have a negative effects on the desire to work -- the thing cons harp about. However, the evidence suggests that welfare-state programs enhance upward mobility, because of things like children of the poor having adequate nutrition and medical care.

Conversely, when such programs are slashed by heartless conservatives who only care about the rich, the poor find themselves in a trap they often can’t escape, not because they lack the incentive, but because they lack the resources to break out.

Just think about it: Does anyone really believe that making conditions harsher, so poor women must work while in the late stages of pregnancy or while they still have infants to care for, actually makes it more likely that those children will succeed in life?

So the whole poverty trap line is a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy; the alleged facts about incentive effects are mostly wrong, and in any case the entire premise that work effort = social mobility is not evident in the data.
 
Last edited:
When the GOP accepts their own Chairman Camp's Tax Reform Bill,
maybe President Obama could put chained CPI back out there, which infuriated his liberals like Sen. Sanders.

Btw, the GOP hammered Obama for hurting Seniors on chained CPI, after they proposed Chained CPI, their MO .
 
NIMBY said:
When the GOP accepts their own Chairman Camp's Tax Reform Bill,
maybe President Obama could put chained CPI back out there, which infuriated his liberals like Sen. Sanders.

Btw, the GOP hammered Obama for hurting Seniors on chained CPI, after they proposed Chained CPI, their MO .
Click to expand...

After six years, Obama has finally grown a pair and learned how to deal with Republicans. In his early years, he had an urge to compromise, so he put out proposals that were where he thought the GOP would settle. Republicans took thee offers as a sign of weakness and as a starting point from which they can bargain Obama down more.

Now, he realizes the characters he's dealing with who aren't serious about governing.
 
MTAtech said:
After six years, Obama has finally grown a pair and learned how to deal with Republicans. In his early years, he had an urge to compromise, so he put out proposals that were where he thought the GOP would settle. Republicans took thee offers as a sign of weakness and as a starting point from which they can bargain Obama down more.

Now, he realizes the characters he's dealing with who aren't serious about governing.
Click to expand...

Obama can't govern himself out of a wet paper bag. He deals with Republicans and Democrats alike - he ignores them for the most part unless he needs to raise money for their re-election. I don't know who's got the joint but apparently it's some good **** so pass it over here.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Didn't Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats already announce that they wouldn't be working on a budget this year? I know, sounds like Harry being Captain Obvious, but I thought I'd read that somewhere.
Click to expand...
Should I make up some random statement and post it on the internet because it might be true?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Didn't Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats already announce that they wouldn't be working on a budget this year? I know, sounds like Harry being Captain Obvious, but I thought I'd read that somewhere.
Click to expand...

I believe that it was Sen Patsy Murray who is head of the Senate Budget committee that said that. Congress is supposed to pass an annual budget but lately they have been unable to do that. Last year was the first time in 4 years that a budget was passed. And in the past, the President's budget has been largely ignored by both parties.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/199579-senate-dems-to-skip-2015-budget
 
Last edited:
Eric7216 said:
I believe that it was Sen Patsy Murray who is head of the Senate Budget committee that said that. Congress is supposed to pass an annual budget but lately they have been unable to do that. Last year was the first time in 4 years that a budget was passed.
Click to expand...
I believe it was Mr. Cantor who began the 2014 year with a 'blank sheet of paper', for his agenda
And in the past, the President's budget has been largely ignored by both parties.
Click to expand...
And before 1974, did POTUSAs put out their own budgets?
Is it in the Constitution for POTUSAs to put out the budget, or one or both chambers to ?
 
What I listened to today said that formal budgets, such as submitted by the POTUSA today, began with Nixon in 1974.
Previously, informal ones began during Harding.
Before that, nothing, and it was described as not being in the Constitution.
I'm always willing to learn tho, no hurry.

As for the POTUSA going first with a proposal, what a free-for-all of criticism that was today and will always be.
Then, Ryan came out cherry-picking with his cuts and give-aways .
MTAtech said:
Presidents issue the budget plan which the Congress acts upon.
See: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
I believe it was Mr. Cantor who began the 2014 year with a 'blank sheet of paper', for his agenda

And before 1974, did POTUSAs put out their own budgets?
Is it in the Constitution for POTUSAs to put out the budget, or one or both chambers to ?
Click to expand...

OK ???? Am I in school now? Are you going to tell me?
I would think that the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 is the one that started having the President submit a budget to Congress. Of course the Constitutional seems clear that Congress is responsible for preparing the budget which the President simply signs or doesn't sign and sends it back. Article 1, Section 7 states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." But that seems to be lost nowadays as people talk about the "Bush Tax Cuts" or whatever even though the President is clearly not allowed to originate a revenue bill. Apparently that was forgotten in the PPACA discussion when it turned out that it was a revenue/tax bill and it did not originate in the House but the Senate. Oh well.

What does Cantor have to do with the President's budget submission or what the Senate does?
 
MTAtech said:
The objective of government is to provide services not see how much we can cut from the poor, elderly and disabled so we can have the rich enjoy low taxes.
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess I missed that power in the Constitution.
 
Eric7216 said:
What does Cantor have to do with the President's budget submission or what the Senate does?
Click to expand...

If someone is going to charge that the Senate isn't doing anything,
I'm going to respond with the GOP House Contract with America this year, a 'blank' sheet of paper .
 
MTAtech said:
The objective of government is to provide services not see how much we can cut from the poor, elderly and disabled so we can have the rich enjoy low taxes.
Click to expand...

umm no that is not the objective of government to provide services. the objective of government is to manage the resources of the people in a wise manner. not wrack up trillions of dollars that it cannot pay back. if you read the reports by 2024 the interest on our debt will be more than the military budget.

the reason is that we have 3.9 trillion dollar budgets where 70% of that is social services in which only 50% of the country is paying taxes for.

so something needs to happen. the easiest way is to reform the programs that are killing the budget so that they operate in a fiscal manner. the other way is to cut any and all un-needed government funding. the GAO alone says there is about 453b dollars in duplicate and fragmented programs in government that can be gotten rid of.
there is about 45b of that in the department of education. we need to get rid of departments that are no longer needed such as the DOE.

by reforming the tax code we can save billions in the IRS enforcement.

it has nothing to do with the rich and tax cuts but that is a nice strawman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom