• 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 budget to miss deficit goal

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...to the surprise of..... nobody.


President Obamas proposed 2013 budget will forecast a $901 billion deficit for next year, falling far short of his goal to halve the deficit in four years.
The budget, an outline of which was released by the White House Friday night, will show a higher deficit this year than in 2011, up from $1.3 trillion to $1.33 trillion.

In addition, the projected decline to $901 billion in 2013 is dependent on enactment of the president's policies, including spending reductions agreed to last summer and ending George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy at the end of this year....

[key points]

The deficit would decline as a percentage of the economy from 8.5% this year
to 5.5% in 2013 and 2.7% by 2018. Most economists say deficits should be below
3% of the economy.


Tax breaks for the wealthy would be reduced so that they are no better than
those for the middle class. No household making more than $1 million a year
would pay less than 30% in income taxes.


More than $360 billion would be cut from Medicare, Medicaid and other health
programs over 10 years -- an amount that's sure to be seen as too much by
seniors and liberal groups, and paltry by Republicans in Congress pushing more
robust cuts in entitlement programs.


Defense spending would be reduced by nearly $500 billion from what was
planned in the budget Obama proposed a year ago.


Savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be put
toward deficit reduction and investments sought by Obama, including new
infrastructure spending.


About $350 billion in new investments, most of them remaining from Obama's
American Jobs Act that was derailed in Congress, would be rejuvenated...
 
Sounds reasonable to me. Cutting spending too quickly would only hurt the recovery.
 
Sounds reasonable to me. Cutting spending too quickly would only hurt the recovery.
Deficit spending is one thing, unlimited deficit spending is something else.
 
Deficit spending is one thing, unlimited deficit spending is something else.

Hence the plan to reduce deficit spending over the next five years.
 
Deficit spending is one thing, unlimited deficit spending is something else.

Hence the plan to reduce deficit spending over the next five years.

$901B in deficit spending for FY2013 is a fair drop from $1.33T in deficit spending for FY2012.

I'd say it's a step in the right direction for deficit reduction and getting the nation's debt problem more under control. After all, less federal spending is what the people and the pundits want, right? Well, by the projected numbers, there you go.
 
$901B in deficit spending for FY2013 is a fair drop from $1.33T in deficit spending for FY2012.

That is a projection, much like Obama's goal of halving the deficit in 4 years.
 
That is a projection, much like Obama's goal of halving the deficit in 4 years.

Every budget is a projection, a proposal, until the money is actually spent. In any case, Congress still needs to approve the President's budget. And they can trim it as they please (just as they could add to it) not to mention it's still up to them to keep spending within budget.

If your argument is President Obama didn't keep his campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, fine. Hold him to that. But do so with the full understanding of what he's had to deal with since coming into office. (I doubt if most people who don't support him are capable of doing that, however.)
 
Last edited:
This is the beginning of a long and most likely drawn out negotiation with Congress over what will and won't be in the next budget. Who cares what the proposal is now? We all know Congress will hack it up, add their pork, and switch out stuff they don't like for what gives them more votes or takes away from Obama's votes. I haven't seen an initial budget proposal yet that came close to surviving Congress's hack job. This one won't be any different.

Discussing individual spending points is one thing but judging the whole package is a waste of time at this point. No one, including Obama, expects it to pass intact.
 
Last edited:
That is a projection, much like Obama's goal of halving the deficit in 4 years.

and the 4.5% growth and 6-7% unemployment that we are currently enjoying :)
 
Maybe it is time for our government to have a balanced budget amendment? That is pretty restrictive, how about a maximum deficit limit for spending. If under 3% (as stated by this article) is healthy, then why not enact a bill that only allows the government to maintain a deficit that is 3% of the economy?
 
Maybe it is time for our government to have a balanced budget amendment? That is pretty restrictive, how about a maximum deficit limit for spending. If under 3% (as stated by this article) is healthy, then why not enact a bill that only allows the government to maintain a deficit that is 3% of the economy?
The problem with any of those kinds of limit is the necessity that may arise from disaster whether it be economic, natural, or whatever. I agree there needs to be some guideline that is usually followed but I can't agree to a constitutional amendment.
 
This is the beginning of a long and most likely drawn out negotiation with Congress over what will and won't be in the next budget. Who cares what the proposal is now? We all know Congress will hack it up, add their pork, and switch out stuff they don't like for what gives them more votes or takes away from Obama's votes. I haven't seen an initial budget proposal yet that came close to surviving Congress's hack job. This one won't be any different.

Discussing individual spending points is one thing but judging the whole package is a waste of time at this point. No one, including Obama, expects it to pass intact.

No, here is what is going to happen. The House is going to pass a budget. One of their own. The Senate is not going to bring their own up and won't vote for the House version. They were then be forced to vote on Obama's budget and he will then get to explain why his budget was again voted down 97-0.

Legally a budget must be passed. I dont understand why it is that politicians are allowed to ignore the law.
 
Legally a budget must be passed. I dont understand why it is that politicians are allowed to ignore the law.
Maybe it's because we just got tired of watching Congress pass even more laws that allow them to ignore the laws they made for the rest of us.
 
The problem with any of those kinds of limit is the necessity that may arise from disaster whether it be economic, natural, or whatever. I agree there needs to be some guideline that is usually followed but I can't agree to a constitutional amendment.

Whatever it is, I think we both agree there needs to be a gerneral control.
 
Back
Top Bottom