Obama Makes New Budget Sales Pitch; GOP Strikes Back

[Catawba]

Link for complete budget below which includes $4 trillion in spending cuts and $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years.

"The president released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 which starts Oct. 1, elements of which he has teased us publicly with for weeks.Meanwhile, Republicans did what the opposition party always does, which is bash the White House occupant's budget for the allegedly wrongheaded manner in which it addresses the nation's most pressing concerns.

With a Maryland middle school serving as a photo op for the president's argument that the nation needs to make in investments in education and other priorities while it attacks the deficit, Obama said his new budget accomplished as much:

These investments are an essential part of the budget my administration is sending to Congress. Because I'm convinced that if we out-build and out-innovate and out-educate, as well as out-hustle the rest of the world, the jobs and industries of our time will take root here in the United States. Our people will prosper and our country will succeed.
But I'm also convinced that the only way we can make these investments in our future is if our government starts living within its means, if we start taking responsibility for our deficits.

That's why, when I was sworn in as President, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. The budget I'm proposing today meets that pledge -– and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade. We do this in part by eliminating waste and cutting whatever spending we can do without."

Obama Makes New Budget Sales Pitch; GOP Strikes Back : It's All Politics : NPR

​

 

[AdamT]

So now the offer that he made during the debt ceiling debacle is in writing. One less excuse for the Republicans.

 

[Catawba]

So now the offer that he made during the debt ceiling debacle is in writing. One less excuse for the Republicans.

And, I haven't seen any proposals by Congressional Republicans for spending cuts that come anywhere close to $4 trillion over ten years. Romney has even stated he wants to increase spending on the military!

 

[Harshaw]

:shrug:

You can wrangle over the pre-loaded talking points all you want. The spending is still at 3.8T or about 26% of GDP, which is well above historical norms and inadvisable, and a deficit of $846BN still sucks monkey balls.

 

[Catawba]

:shrug:

You can wrangle over the pre-loaded talking points all you want. The spending is still at 3.8T or about 26% of GDP, which is well above historical norms and inadvisable, and a deficit of $846BN still sucks monkey balls.

It took 30 years for the debt to get this big, its not going to be fixed over night. Have you seen any written proposals by the GOP to cut spending more than the $4 trillion over ten years as proposed in the President's budget?

 

[gingern44]

If history is any judge, 10 years from now we will have increased taxes by 3 trillion and spending by 12.

 

[Sparky]

Have you seen any written proposals by the GOP to cut spending more than the $4 trillion over ten years as proposed in the President's budget?

No we have NOT because Harry Reid is burying them upon receiving them instead of presenting them.

 

[Harshaw]

It took 30 years for the debt to get this big

There have only been three years of >$1.2T deficits. Prior to that, they've all been under $500BN.

Spending jumped 33% in a single year and stayed there. These two phenomena are not coincidences.

its not going to be fixed over night.

It's not going to be fixed at all.

Have you seen any written proposals by the GOP to cut spending more than the $4 trillion over ten years as proposed in the President's budget?

Sure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/us/politics/04spend.html

But entire idea of "over 10 years" is laughable on its face. This never, ever happens.

 

[haymarket]

No we have NOT because Harry Reid is burying them upon receiving them instead of presenting them.

Why would he do that?

 

[Zyphlin]

Oh look, its Obama once again trying to peddle cuts spread out over 10 year which largely backload them to 6+ years after they'd go into effect (you know, after he's out of office), go off the assumption that the future things will actually be continued by future congresses/presidents, and is padded by the ending of things that are inevitably going to conclude.

Wow, I'm thoroughly impressed. No really, bravo.

:roll:

The government must live within its means, and by live within its means we mean live within the additional means we take from you that will allow us to perpetuate our spending until such point that I'm no longer in office in which case sure then we can make some decent cuts.

 

[Catawba]

No we have NOT because Harry Reid is burying them upon receiving them instead of presenting them.

Here again is a link to the Presidents budget:

Obama's 2012 Budget - Fullscreen

 

[Catawba]

Sure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/us/politics/04spend.html

But entire idea of "over 10 years" is laughable on its face. This never, ever happens.

Ryan's plan throws seniors under the bus to pay for the Bush tax cuts and wars. Seniors were the only demographic carried by the GOP in the last presidential election. That is why the Ryan budget was withdrawn by the Republicans.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why would he do that?

Gee Hay, why dont you tell us? I refuse to allow you to get off playing stupid quite that blatantly.

While I may not know concretely why, I can make some speculations. How about you do the same?

 

[Harshaw]

Ryan's plan throws seniors under the bus to pay for the Bush tax cuts and wars. Seniors were the only demographic carried by the GOP in the last presidential election. That is why the Ryan budget was withdrawn by the Republicans.

I'm astounded that you moved the goalposts. Really, I am. :roll:

You wanted a written Republican proposal for $4T in cuts over 10 years. I gave you exactly that. What you think of how it's done is irrelevant.

And you're either lying or are horribly misinformed, because it was not "withdrawn." It was passed by the House and voted on in the Senate. Not that it matters, because all you wanted was a proposal.

 

[Catawba]

I'm astounded that you moved the goalposts. Really, I am. :roll:

You wanted a written Republican proposal for $4T in cuts over 10 years. I gave you exactly that. What you think of how it's done is irrelevant.

And you're either lying or are horribly misinformed, because it was not "withdrawn." It was passed by the House and voted on in the Senate. Not that it matters, because all you wanted was a proposal.

Very good, you presented a proposal:

"MEDICARE AND THE PAUL RYAN BUDGET. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan was struck a deafening blow this week. As John Nichols reports, the Ryan budget’s most controversial provision—an end to Medicare as we know it—cost the GOP a House seat in a ruby red district. Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican nominee Jane Corwin in Tuesday’s closely watched special election. At its core, Nichols points out, was Hochul’s defense of Medicare. And Republican Senators are now also joining the ranks of opposition. The US Senate rejected the Ryan budget 57-40 in Wednesday’s bipartisan vote."

This Week: A Recall on Ryan's Budget. PLUS: Special Tribute for Memorial Day | The Nation

 

[Harshaw]

Very good, you presented a proposal:

"MEDICARE AND THE PAUL RYAN BUDGET. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan was struck a deafening blow this week. As John Nichols reports, the Ryan budget’s most controversial provision—an end to Medicare as we know it—cost the GOP a House seat in a ruby red district. Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican nominee Jane Corwin in Tuesday’s closely watched special election. At its core, Nichols points out, was Hochul’s defense of Medicare. And Republican Senators are now also joining the ranks of opposition. The US Senate rejected the Ryan budget 57-40 in Wednesday’s bipartisan vote."

This Week: A Recall on Ryan's Budget. PLUS: Special Tribute for Memorial Day | The Nation

What do you think this does for you? I didn't say a thing which this contradicts.

I gave you what you asked for; you moved the goalposts.

And I guess by emphasizing the Senate voting it down, you're claiming it was "withdrawn"? That moves out of being misinformed and firmly into abject dishonesty -- especially when you claimed it was withdrawn by the GOP because they didn't want to lose the senior vote.

You're just wrong. Don't make it worse by lying.

 

[Catawba]

What do you think this does for you? I didn't say a thing which this contradicts.

I gave you what you asked for; you moved the goalposts.

And I guess by emphasizing the Senate voting it down, you're claiming it was "withdrawn"? That moves out of being misinformed and firmly into abject dishonesty -- especially when you claimed it was withdrawn by the GOP because they didn't want to lose the senior vote.

You're just wrong. Don't make it worse by lying.

I congratulated you for finding a proposal. And yes, it wasn't withdrawn as I had previously thought, but the Republicans joined the Democrats in voting it down.

As was noted, "the Ryan budget’s most controversial provision—an end to Medicare as we know it—cost the GOP a House seat in a ruby red district. Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican nominee Jane Corwin in Tuesday’s closely watched special election. At its core, Nichols points out, was Hochul’s defense of Medicare. And Republican Senators are now also joining the ranks of opposition. The US Senate rejected the Ryan budget 57-40 in Wednesday’s bipartisan vote."

 

[Harshaw]

I congratulated you for finding a proposal. And yes, it wasn't withdrawn as I had previously thought, but the Republicans joined the Democrats in voting it down.

Well, thank you for saying so.

As was noted, "the Ryan budget’s most controversial provision—an end to Medicare as we know it—cost the GOP a House seat in a ruby red district. Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican nominee Jane Corwin in Tuesday’s closely watched special election. At its core, Nichols points out, was Hochul’s defense of Medicare. And Republican Senators are now also joining the ranks of opposition. The US Senate rejected the Ryan budget 57-40 in Wednesday’s bipartisan vote."

I don't care. Got nothing to do with it. That's your moving goalpost.

 

[Catawba]

Well, thank you for saying so.



I don't care. Got nothing to do with it. That's your moving goalpost.

It has plenty to do with a feasible path to deficit reduction.

 

[Harshaw]

It has plenty to do with a feasible path to deficit reduction.

Which is your moved goalpost, yes.

 

[haymarket]

Gee Hay, why dont you tell us? I refuse to allow you to get off playing stupid quite that blatantly.

While I may not know concretely why, I can make some speculations. How about you do the same?

It is your statement. You tell us. That is the way debate works.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

And the greatest joke of our time continues... projected revenues by the federal government. See when we draw the line like this, that means we get spend more and "reduce" the deficit all at the same time! It's also nice for Americans to finally see what $1.5 trillion in spending cuts really looks like; it means we spend more each year but not as much as we were 'planning' on spending. Now, we can say we are 'cutting' spending and 'reducing' deficits both at the same time! Woohoo!

 

[Catawba]

Chinese Rating Agency Says "The US Has Already Defaulted" … German Rating Agency Downgrades U.S. Debt


As we can see, most of our debt is attributable to the Bush Era Tax Cuts, the wars, and the economic recession. Trickle down economics, excessive military spending and deregulation, was the economics plan put into place 30 years ago, it was called Reaganomics!

Not the very same party that brought us 30 years of Reaganomics wants us to approve their continuation of Reaganomics, with a new twist, they propose that the programs that serve the lower income now should be required to pay for the debt created by 30 years of Reaganomics.

Federal Budget « California Budget Bites

 

[Harshaw]

Chinese Rating Agency Says "The US Has Already Defaulted" … German Rating Agency Downgrades U.S. Debt


As we can see, most of our debt is attributable to the Bush Era Tax Cuts, the wars, and the economic recession. Trickle down economics, excessive military spending and deregulation, was the economics plan put into place 30 years ago, it was called Reaganomics!

Not the very same party that brought us 30 years of Reaganomics wants us to approve their continuation of Reaganomics, with a new twist, they propose that the programs that serve the lower income now should be required to pay for the debt created by 30 years of Reaganomics.

Federal Budget « California Budget Bites

All this crap is old, old news, and not only that, it's OUTDATED news. Has nothing to do with current budgets.

It's funny how these things never include the extra $900BN to $1T in spending which has been in place over Bush's 2008 budget when figuring into the deficit.

 

[Catawba]

All this crap is old, old news, and not only that, it's OUTDATED news. Has nothing to do with current budgets.

It's funny how these things never include the extra $900BN to $1T in spending which has been in place over Bush's 2008 budget when figuring into the deficit.

LOL! Most of our debt is from 30 years of Reaganomics. The stimulus was required to prevent the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Depression.

The seniors did not create the last 30 years of debt, but if you think you can garner votes from them for your plan to make them pay for it, knock yourself out!