• 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's FY 2012 Budget

iamitter said:
Here's a nifty chart showing the splitting of the budget and how much an average household would pay for each of these items. Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com

My take: bleh at the upper left hand corner and the voting bloc as gigantic as their lazy asses that supports it; I don't want to pay for their damn medicare.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting, great link. There is a lot of room to actually cut here especially on items that are already funded at the state and local levels yet Obama is increasing spending at the national level.
 
iamitter said:
I don't expect anyone to pay for me.
Click to expand...

So when you add up the per household cost you pay that much in taxes?

I'm actually more interested in the total household hit and how it was calcualted. I'm getting something different anyway.
 
Mach said:
So when you add up the per household cost you pay that much in taxes?
Click to expand...

I pay a significant amount more, actually. Even after tax deductible donations I make.
 
Mach said:
So when you add up the per household cost you pay that much in taxes?

I'm actually more interested in the total household hit and how it was calcualted. I'm getting something different anyway.
Click to expand...

Everyone needs to really understand what funds these items, Federal Income Taxes, SS taxes, Excise taxes, and Corporate Income taxes. SS should be removed as should the expenses but that is for another thread. Right now 47% of the people in this country pay zero in Federal Income Taxes
 
j-mac said:
And we wish not to pay for you either. So how about we let you pay for you, and I'll pay for me. We can start by giving my to date contributions back, and let me invest them.

However, maybe you'll answer the questions I asked Boo?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I'll back and see if I missed any questions.

However, if you want to do what you suggest, you have to say people needing emergency care who can't pay, don't have to be treated. As long as they are treated, and can't pay, you will pay for them.
 
Wow @entitlement and debt. Good job democrats, what's your plan?

iamitter said:
I pay a significant amount more, actually. Even after tax deductible donations I make.
Click to expand...

As do I. I might be a pixel or two, depending on the resolution ;)
 
j-mac said:
That may or may not be true. However, it is still less expensive than that of Single payer. But this is about the Macro, not the micro issue of health care as far as the budget is concerned.

Why do you suppose Boo, that the proposed budget only contains those cuts that are insignificant to actual deficit reduction?

And where the hell is Obama going to get over $3 Trillion to pay for it?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I thought those were rhetorical. Sorry.

We've seen this type of Budget from both parties for as long as you and I have been alive. All our leaders know two things: You can't deal with the deficit without cutting medicare, Ss and the military, or raising taxes, or both. As none of those things fit with public desires, and seats will be lost if anyone proposed any of it, our leaders dance and pretend, and they do so in both parties.

We pay for healthcare now, more than anyone else. We could make a cast of shifting costs from the ad hock method we presently employ to taxes, which would be cheaper and more cost efective, or we could pretend as we've done for decades that there is no connection to services and how we pay for them.
 
Conservative said:
All relative, we make more than any other country in the world, have more people, higher thresholds for drug and medical procedure approvals, and higher corporate tax rates on business.
Click to expand...

Not relative at all. We falt out spend more.
 
j-mac said:
We also have a greater population than those with Single payer. However, this is about the budget as a whole, could you stick to the questions I asked? If you want to continue your propaganda in favor of Single payer, may I suggest that you start yet another thread about it? Otherwise stick to the budget.


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's why it is measured as a percentage. But if cost is your argument, in this thread or any other, I have to ask why you want to argue for paying more?
 
Conservative said:
What you want is someone else to take over your personal responsibility issues? Why do you believe the Federal Govt. can give you what you WANT? What you seem to want is the utopia that liberals always promise and never deliver. A govt. that is big enough to give you all that you WANT is also big enough to take it all away. Our Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, you want equal outcome. Affordable healthcare is a relative term and different depending on the individual. In spite of history you seem to believe the govt. can provide affordable anything? Name for me one thing that the govt. has provided that has reduced costs and improved quality?
Click to expand...

Just as a matter of point, this is where the health care discussion started. The choice is always to answer it or ignore it.
 
Conservative said:
Of course it is because when you talk about greed not once have I heard you or anyone else talk about Govt. greed. You have no problem at all about buying the rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion but not once have questioned the lack of results from that spending thus rhetoric always trumps substance.
Click to expand...

Greedy are the ones who want something someone else worked for.
 
Ockham said:
Uhhh... couvetousness is the synonym for avarice, who's definition is "extreme greed".

Covetousness Synonyms, Covetousness Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Click to expand...

That does not matter since one of the actual definitions of covetousness is ...

covetousness
Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson 0.01 sec.
cov·et·ous (kv-ts)
adj.
1. Excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another. See Synonyms at jealous.
Click to expand...

While there is another definition that state...

2. Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess: covetous of learning.
Click to expand...

So, we learn, that in this word, the term can be used for greed and also it can be used for wanting the possessions of others.

This can be verified by looking at the definition of greed ...

greed (grd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett).
Click to expand...

Which more or less matches definition #2 of covetousness.

However, greed's definition does not match #1 of covetousness, so they are not fully interchangable words, only partially. Ultimately, this means that barb misapplied the term.

:prof its much easier to know what a word means if you look at its definition rather than using a thesaurus.
 
megaprogman said:
That does not matter since one of the actual definitions of covetousness is ...



While there is another definition that state...



So, we learn, that in this word, the term can be used for greed and also it can be used for wanting the possessions of others.

This can be verified by looking at the definition of greed ...



Which more or less matches definition #2 of covetousness.

However, greed's definition does not match #1 of covetousness, so they are not fully interchangable words, only partially. Ultimately, this means that barb misapplied the term.

:prof its much easier to know what a word means if you look at its definition rather than using a thesaurus.
Click to expand...

Dude. Symantics. It means the same thing. Who cares if it's defnition #1 or defintition #2, partially or other wise. It's also much better to know when to not argue than to look silly arguing partial definition #1 vs definition #2. If you want me to provide like a bunch of links that show your wrong, I will. Do you really want to go there?
 
Back in the '80s the president's budget each year was DOA at capitol hill. Seems like old times.

The president offered a middle-of-the-road budget plan with more than a trillion dollars of cuts over the next decade. This plan doesn't begin to address the structural deficits that the Bush years produced.

On the other hand, it didn't much matter what Obama offered, the Republicans would have been critical. Now it's the House G.O.P.'s fractious caucus' turn and from what we've already seen of their budgetary ideas they will offer a budget so radical in its breadth and depth that the American people will find comfort in Obama's same old, same old.

The only approaches that have realistically addressed the challenges that America faces going forward have resembled the presidential debt commission plan: encompassing wide ranging budgetary, entitlement and tax policies reforms. The rough formula has been two-third spending cuts, one third tax increases.

Until the adults get in a room and settle on a comprehensive plan, there seems little point in participating in this mud fight which is more about the next election than it is about governing the nation.
 
Chappy said:
Back in the '80s the president's budget each year was DOA at capitol hill. Seems like old times.

The president offered a middle-of-the-road budget plan with more than a trillion dollars of cuts over the next decade. This plan doesn't begin to address the structural deficits that the Bush years produced.

On the other hand, it didn't much matter what Obama offered, the Republicans would have been critical. Now it's the House G.O.P.'s fractious caucus' turn and from what we've already seen of their budgetary ideas they will offer a budget so radical in its breadth and depth that the American people will find comfort in Obama's same old, same old.

The only approaches that have realistically addressed the challenges that America faces going forward have resembled the presidential debt commission plan: encompassing wide ranging budgetary, entitlement and tax policies reforms. The rough formula has been two-third spending cuts, one third tax increases.

Until the adults get in a room and settle on a comprehensive plan, there seems little point in participating in this mud fight which is more about the next election than it is about governing the nation.
Click to expand...

LOL, so it was Bush's fault that Obama has had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits and a fourth upcoming? Unbelievable, obviously you are from San Francisco, out of touch with reality. keep buying the Obama rhetoric and paying the price in your own credibility.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, so it was Bush's fault that Obama has had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits and a fourth upcoming? …
Click to expand...

Bush inherited a balanced budget tending towards surplus. In his time in office, he doubled the national debt. Obama inherited structural budget deficits as far as the eye could see and an economy experiencing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Yes, I blame the Bush years.
 
Chappy said:
Bush inherited a balanced budget tending towards surplus. In his time in office, he doubled the national debt. Obama inherited structural budget deficits as far as the eye could see and an economy experiencing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Yes, I blame the Bush years.
Click to expand...

No, Chappy, Bush didn't inherit a balanced budget or the debt wouldn't have gone up. You keep buying the rhetoric thus my statement that the rhetoric destroys your credibility. Presidents cannot spend a dime that the Congress doesn't approve and from 2007 to the end of his term it was a Democrat Congress. What did Democrats do to cut what you claim to be Bush deficits? By the way deficits are yearly and in the last 4 years of Democrat Control the debt went up over 5 trillion dollars, hardly Bush's fault.

Then you buy the liberal rhetoric about the Great Depression which since you weren't around then and probably not around during the early 80's wouldn't understand what a bad economy really looks like. A depression today is not getting an IPhone. Try paying 17+% for a home in 1981.

Debt by year

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
Chappy said:
Back in the '80s the president's budget each year was DOA at capitol hill. Seems like old times.

The president offered a middle-of-the-road budget plan with more than a trillion dollars of cuts over the next decade. This plan doesn't begin to address the structural deficits that the Bush years produced.
Click to expand...
30 years ago, the national debt was around 1 Trillion. The middle-of-the-road budget with 1 Trillion in cuts will add 13 Trillion in debt over the same decade.

Miami Herald said:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama proposed a $3.73 trillion budget Monday for fiscal 2012 that he said will start reining in runaway budget deficits, but his plan envisions the gross national debt swelling by almost $13 trillion over a decade.
Click to expand...
How is this possible you ask?

Miami Herald said:
He also said he'd cut this year's record $1.65 trillion deficit to $1.1 trillion next year, but he avoids tough choices on such big issues as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which together are driving the national debt skyward.
Click to expand...
Read more: Obama's budget would add $13 trillion to national debt - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

Chappy said:
On the other hand, it didn't much matter what Obama offered, the Republicans would have been critical. Now it's the House G.O.P.'s fractious caucus' turn and from what we've already seen of their budgetary ideas they will offer a budget so radical in its breadth and depth that the American people will find comfort in Obama's same old, same old.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd say you're right. However, there may be a wind blowing that says we can no longer pass the buck and find comfort.

Chappy said:
The only approaches that have realistically addressed the challenges that America faces going forward have resembled the presidential debt commission plan: encompassing wide ranging budgetary, entitlement and tax policies reforms. The rough formula has been two-third spending cuts, one third tax increases.

Until the adults get in a room and settle on a comprehensive plan, there seems little point in participating in this mud fight which is more about the next election than it is about governing the nation.
Click to expand...

The odd part about that is the 2012 budget IGNORES Obama's own debt commissions findings entirely. I think there are more adults in the room since the mid-term election. As in Egypt, the people have spoken. It's wise for government to listen.
 
Conservative said:
All part of the Obama masterplan, to turn this country into a European socialist model that redistributes wealth and grows the size of govt. Anyone that supports this is on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

I don't think Europe has as much debt though... America will have to spend less or pay off some major debts to be on the same level of European socalism
 
Conservative said:
Why do you support what Obama is implementing? His goal was to fundamentally change this country. Looks to me like far too many misunderstood what that change entailed. You really don't see the masterplan in the policies he is implementing?
Click to expand...

ohh, Conservative is in this thread... it's gonna be a good one :)
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing how cult followers operate? They ignore the history that refutes their ideology preferring instead to showing their arrogance in believing they can do better than the previous group of liberals.
Click to expand...

That's funny coming from somebody calling himself a Conservative, and not an Idependent... Were you cult following Bush when he spent a trillion dollars too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom