• 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 sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
134,496
Reaction score
14,621
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Imagiine that - yet another Obama "budget" that increases federal spending and taxes. ;)
 
Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes | Fox News

Let's put to bed the belief that Obama cares about the deficit and the debt? Again he proposes a higher budget than he will get and when it is rejected will come back and claim he cut the deficit. What justifies an increase in spending with an 18.2 trillion dollar debt?

Overall principle to keep in mind with these things is the perspective of spending and taxation as percentages of GDP.

GDP for 2014 is estimated at $17.4 Trillion, the estimate for 2015 seems to be close to $18.2 Trillion which seems ambitious to me given how far off the CBO usually is. Spending for 2104 seems to be somewhere in the $3.65 Trillion range (20.9% of GDP) with revenues being somewhere in the $3.0 Trillion range (17.3% of GDP.) Political gridlock over the 112th and 113th Congresses allowed for the gap in spending and revenues to close, but it also put us in an awkward position to handle spending in our economic model that is now entirely dependent upon continued spending increases. Unfortunate consequence of economic policy devoid of economic principles. But at the end of the day Obama does not get to claim he cut the deficit, political gridlock did more for that than any spending intentions Obama has proposed at any point during his Presidency.

Obama's spending / taxation changes plan for 2015 has several flaws. One that ambitious GDP growth estimate for 2015 over 2014. According to the CBO we are looking at an almost 5% jump in GDP for this year. Might happen but we have enough economic indications that growth might continue to slow down. Assume for a moment we see a 3% growth for this year and that equates to $17.9 Trillion for 2015 GDP. That would mean that Obama spending wants becomes 22.3% of GDP (or higher and roughly the 2010 percentages in spending to GDP.) And that is a two way street, meaning if GDP growth under-performs then odds are revenues under-performs and we see deficits inch back upwards. Also, Obama's plan destroys us getting Total Debt below 100% of GDP.

The good news is much like previous Obama spending / taxation desires he now faces an all Republican 114th Congress who will most likely ignore the budget / taxation requests and we see another round of "class warfare" type mic time. In the end I suspect that spending will still inch upwards from the $3.65 Trillion 2014 number but probably not to the extent that Obama would have liked. Continued gridlock will be the story for the next 2 years, that will include budget constraints, but still increases year on year.

You also have to keep in mind that politically Republicans will talk about fiscal irresponsibility *so long as* political opposition controls the White House. Now, assuming that 2016 is favorable to Republicans where they keep Congress for the 115th and get a Republican President then they will go on a spending spree. Odds are just with a marginal GDP growth for 2015 and 2016 we will eclipse spending more than $4 Trillion in a year anyway in spending as a percentage of GDP perspective. 2016 seems to be the target for that to happen regardless of political gridlock or the economy at the time. If Republicans go with the normal mantra of tax cuts and wealth protection route in 2016 at the same time as these high 20% ('ish) spending as a percentage of GDP they will inflate the deficits as well putting a strain on the cost of debt. Right about the time debt becomes more expensive again.

Seems to me we need a real fiscal conservative to come in and decide what spending we can live without. And that is extremely unlikely given today's political climate and this weak, debt based, and prone to bubble and pop economic model we run.
 
Last edited:
Overall principle to keep in mind with these things is the perspective of spending and taxation as percentages of GDP.

GDP for 2014 is estimated at $17.4 Trillion, the estimate for 2015 seems to be close to $18.2 Trillion which seems ambitious to me given how far off the CBO usually is. Spending for 2104 seems to be somewhere in the $3.65 Trillion range (20.9% of GDP) with revenues being somewhere in the $3.0 Trillion range (17.3% of GDP.) Political gridlock over the 112th and 113th Congresses allowed for the gap in spending and revenues to close, but it also put us in an awkward position to handle spending in our economic model that is now entirely dependent upon continued spending increases. Unfortunate consequence of economic policy devoid of economic principles. But at the end of the day Obama does not get to claim he cut the deficit, political gridlock did more for that than any spending intentions Obama has proposed at any point during his Presidency.

Obama's spending / taxation changes plan for 2015 has several flaws. One that ambitious GDP growth estimate for 2015 over 2014. According to the CBO we are looking at an almost 5% jump in GDP for this year. Might happen but we have enough economic indications that growth might continue to slow down. Assume for a moment we see a 3% growth for this year and that equates to $17.9 Trillion for 2015 GDP. That would mean that Obama spending wants becomes 22.3% of GDP (or higher and roughly the 2010 percentages in spending to GDP.) And that is a two way street, meaning if GDP growth under-performs then odds are revenues under-performs and we see deficits inch back upwards. Also, Obama's plan destroys us getting Total Debt below 100% of GDP.

The good news is much like previous Obama spending / taxation desires he now faces an all Republican 114th Congress who will most likely ignore the budget / taxation requests and we see another round of "class warfare" type mic time. In the end I suspect that spending will still inch upwards from the $3.65 Trillion 2014 number but probably not to the extent that Obama would have liked. Continued gridlock will be the story for the next 2 years, that will include budget constraints, but still increases year on year.

You also have to keep in mind that politically Republicans will talk about fiscal irresponsibility *so long as* political opposition controls the White House. Now, assuming that 2016 is favorable to Republicans where they keep Congress for the 115th and get a Republican President then they will go on a spending spree. Odds are just with a marginal GDP growth for 2015 and 2016 we will eclipse spending more than $4 Trillion in a year anyway in spending as a percentage of GDP perspective. 2016 seems to be the target for that to happen regardless of political gridlock or the economy at the time. If Republicans go with the normal mantra of tax cuts and wealth protection route in 2016 at the same time as these high 20% ('ish) spending as a percentage of GDP they will inflate the deficits as well putting a strain on the cost of debt. Right about the time debt becomes more expensive again.

Seems to me we need a real fiscal conservative to come in and decide what spending we can live without. And that is extremely unlikely given today's political climate and this weak, debt based, and prone to bubble and pop economic model we run.

Very good post, thank you. What I wanted to point out is that there are Obama supporters here giving him credit for reducing the deficit and what I pointed out is that he has no interest in reducing the deficit but only spending more money to implement his commitment to transform this country into a European economic model. He is nothing more than a big spending, irresponsible, incompetent individual whose goal is to continue creating dependence and thus a permanent liberal leadership in D.C.
 
inflation, a larger population to service, and negative real interest rates.

LOL, yep, big govt. liberal who still doesn't understand the role of the Federal Govt. Who do the states serve?
 
Yep, completely unable to even try to refute the answer he was given.

I did refute it, get someone to help you comprehend that CDC is in the Federal Budget thus has money allocated for it to hand Ebola
 
Overall principle to keep in mind with these things is the perspective of spending and taxation as percentages of GDP.

GDP for 2014 is estimated at $17.4 Trillion, the estimate for 2015 seems to be close to $18.2 Trillion which seems ambitious to me given how far off the CBO usually is. Spending for 2104 seems to be somewhere in the $3.65 Trillion range (20.9% of GDP) with revenues being somewhere in the $3.0 Trillion range (17.3% of GDP.) Political gridlock over the 112th and 113th Congresses allowed for the gap in spending and revenues to close, but it also put us in an awkward position to handle spending in our economic model that is now entirely dependent upon continued spending increases. Unfortunate consequence of economic policy devoid of economic principles. But at the end of the day Obama does not get to claim he cut the deficit, political gridlock did more for that than any spending intentions Obama has proposed at any point during his Presidency.

Obama's spending / taxation changes plan for 2015 has several flaws. One that ambitious GDP growth estimate for 2015 over 2014. According to the CBO we are looking at an almost 5% jump in GDP for this year. Might happen but we have enough economic indications that growth might continue to slow down. Assume for a moment we see a 3% growth for this year and that equates to $17.9 Trillion for 2015 GDP. That would mean that Obama spending wants becomes 22.3% of GDP (or higher and roughly the 2010 percentages in spending to GDP.) And that is a two way street, meaning if GDP growth under-performs then odds are revenues under-performs and we see deficits inch back upwards. Also, Obama's plan destroys us getting Total Debt below 100% of GDP.

The good news is much like previous Obama spending / taxation desires he now faces an all Republican 114th Congress who will most likely ignore the budget / taxation requests and we see another round of "class warfare" type mic time. In the end I suspect that spending will still inch upwards from the $3.65 Trillion 2014 number but probably not to the extent that Obama would have liked. Continued gridlock will be the story for the next 2 years, that will include budget constraints, but still increases year on year.

You also have to keep in mind that politically Republicans will talk about fiscal irresponsibility *so long as* political opposition controls the White House. Now, assuming that 2016 is favorable to Republicans where they keep Congress for the 115th and get a Republican President then they will go on a spending spree. Odds are just with a marginal GDP growth for 2015 and 2016 we will eclipse spending more than $4 Trillion in a year anyway in spending as a percentage of GDP perspective. 2016 seems to be the target for that to happen regardless of political gridlock or the economy at the time. If Republicans go with the normal mantra of tax cuts and wealth protection route in 2016 at the same time as these high 20% ('ish) spending as a percentage of GDP they will inflate the deficits as well putting a strain on the cost of debt. Right about the time debt becomes more expensive again.

Seems to me we need a real fiscal conservative to come in and decide what spending we can live without. And that is extremely unlikely given today's political climate and this weak, debt based, and prone to bubble and pop economic model we run.

theres not some magic fiscal conservative that can come in wave a wand and fix the budget there just isnt a lot to cut out, the problem is entitlements. The democrats talk about fair share and the GOP talks about a flat tax how about they come together and fix the regressive payroll tax. Uncap it and also apply it to anyone who makes the majority of their income from capital gains.
 
I did refute it, get someone to help you comprehend that CDC is in the Federal Budget thus has money allocated for it to hand Ebola

throwing out catchphrases like "LOL government liberal"

does not refute the truth of the three conditions I listed.

Either link to data that cites them to be incorrect, or keep waive your white flag.
 
Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes | Fox News

Let's put to bed the belief that Obama cares about the deficit and the debt? Again he proposes a higher budget than he will get and when it is rejected will come back and claim he cut the deficit. What justifies an increase in spending with an 18.2 trillion dollar debt?

300bn in new taxes, apparently, which would in theory reduce the deficit a little from the baseline. What he never seems to get is, right or wrong, the people want lower deficits and debt. WHich makes his proposals dead on arrival. Even Dems in congress wont support a budget which allows the deficit to go up. They cant win votes supporting that.

The fiscal 2016 budget proposal would leave a deficit of $474 billion. Obama's budget plan never reaches balance over the next decade and projects the deficit would rise to $687 billion in 2025.
 
theres not some magic fiscal conservative that can come in wave a wand and fix the budget there just isnt a lot to cut out, the problem is entitlements. The democrats talk about fair share and the GOP talks about a flat tax how about they come together and fix the regressive payroll tax. Uncap it and also apply it to anyone who makes the majority of their income from capital gains.

There IS a lot to cut out, people just need to accept that they dont need probes on mars, free community college, bridges to nowhere, etc etc. There is literally hundreds of billions of spending at the very least of things that we dont need. They are luxuries, which we dont have the luxury of affording right now.
 
the people want lower deficits .


Since when?
2-22-13-99.png
 
There IS a lot to cut out, people just need to accept that they dont need probes on mars, free community college, bridges to nowhere, etc etc. There is literally hundreds of billions of spending at the very least of things that we dont need. They are luxuries, which we dont have the luxury of affording right now.

You are talking about the symptom not the disease. Sure dropping our 483 billion deficit to 300 billion would help but long term it doesnt fix anything
 
theres not some magic fiscal conservative that can come in wave a wand and fix the budget there just isnt a lot to cut out, the problem is entitlements. The democrats talk about fair share and the GOP talks about a flat tax how about they come together and fix the regressive payroll tax. Uncap it and also apply it to anyone who makes the majority of their income from capital gains.

Do you have any clue as to the actual role of the Federal Govt? Explain to me why we need a 4.0 trillion dollar Federal Budget.
 
You are talking about the symptom not the disease. Sure dropping our 483 billion deficit to 300 billion would help but long term it doesnt fix anything

Where has it been proven that long term a "fix" is required?
 
Since when?
2-22-13-99.png

What this shows is that the liberal brainwashing is working and Gruber has a growing list of uneducated voters. You have no idea what the role of the Federal Govt. is or was intended to be therefore there isn't a tax dollar that you wouldn't spend. The 18.2 trillion dollar debt hasn't solved a social program so your answer is just throw more money at it.
 
You are talking about the symptom not the disease. Sure dropping our 483 billion deficit to 300 billion would help but long term it doesnt fix anything

How does 300 billion added to the 18.2 trillion dollar debt help?
 
What this shows is that the liberal brainwashing is working and Gruber has a growing list of uneducated voters. You have no idea what the role of the Federal Govt. is or was intended to be therefore there isn't a tax dollar that you wouldn't spend. The 18.2 trillion dollar debt hasn't solved a social program so your answer is just throw more money at it.


It's nice that you just admitted that caring for our veterans is the result of liberal brainwashing.
 
Where has it been proven that long term a "fix" is required?

Our debt/gdp ratio cant hold like this forever and ss, medicare and medicaid will be underfunded in a few years.

Its a fact that fixes are needed and why would you waste time on a short term fix
 
Our debt/gdp ratio cant hold like this forever and ss, medicare and medicaid will be underfunded in a few years.

Its a fact that fixes are needed and why would you waste time on a short term fix

I won't disagree with your point in principle necessarily; however, it is not as if these problems are unknown, yet investing in us debt instruments is still viewed as one of if not the safest choices in the world, and until that fact changes, and the negative real interest rates vanish, I can't say we actually *have to* "fix" it , especially at the moment. With that said, I would like for every deficit $ spent to be infrastructure fixes. We can all dream, right?
 
Do you have any clue as to the actual role of the Federal Govt? Explain to me why we need a 4.0 trillion dollar Federal Budget.

Most of that is entitlement spending, you could argue whether or not that is in the scope of the federal govt but that conversation would be about half a century to late. I favor pragmatic solutions over rhetoric.
 
theres not some magic fiscal conservative that can come in wave a wand and fix the budget there just isnt a lot to cut out, the problem is entitlements. The democrats talk about fair share and the GOP talks about a flat tax how about they come together and fix the regressive payroll tax. Uncap it and also apply it to anyone who makes the majority of their income from capital gains.

Entitlements are not THE problem. They are A problem, among many.

Since when?
2-22-13-99.png

I would at least cut every single one of those, and eliminate several.
 
Back
Top Bottom