Archives

AP- Liz Sidoti 2/21/2009

Ambitious and absolutely worthy, but can he do it without destroying the economy? --Ed

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years ...More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget)

Apparently the official goal is to be announced Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/21/obama.deficit/index.html

Hi WH:

___Worthy goals and one that brings hope after the recovery gets started... If the recovery gets started?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

But...last I checked the Constitution, the power of the purse resides in the legislature, not the executive....

But...last I checked the Constitution, the power of the purse resides in the legislature, not the executive....

Correct. Traditionally, the President proposes the budget, the Congress passes it, and the President will sign or veto it.

Obama cannot set the budget by fiat, but he CAN propose a budget to Congress that will have sufficient surplus to cut the national debt.

The question becomes- if this is financed by taxing the "wealthy" and cutting federal expeditures, how much of an additional burden can the wealthy bear before the backlash shuts down the economy? What effect will greatly reduced federal government have on the populace?

Well, a good start to that goal would be to stop spending so damn much money.:rolleyes:

The question becomes- if this is financed by taxing the "wealthy" and cutting federal expeditures, how much of an additional burden can the wealthy bear before the backlash shuts down the economy?

Raise investment taxes by taxing investments as income. Then their "additional burden" will be equal to my "actual burden". Imagine that! Paying the same rates as me. No more free ride for the super rich political donor class.

Raise investment taxes by taxing investments as income. Then their "additional burden" will be equal to my "actual burden". Imagine that! Paying the same rates as me. No more free ride for the super rich political donor class.

I'm apparently part of the super rich political donor class, I have investment income. :confused:

some of Obama's proposals:

Business tax rates may jump from 15% to 39.6%

Medicare programs will take a hit.

Say goodbye to increased foreign aid (Rebuilding, food aid, Peace Corps?)

And..... AMT will be broadened again!:(:(:(

Details (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?th&emc=th)

More on Thursday.

Fixing problems at home takes precedence over foreign aid. It's sad and heartless to go that path but I'd rather see $100 million go to fixing up dying American urban centers than to faceless poor people in Africa whom I'll never see.

Don't hold your breath. We have already seen that this administration is highly interested in eliminating pain, not imposing pain. It's just political rhetoric about far outyear expenditures.

Well, a good start to that goal would be to stop spending so damn much money.:rolleyes:

There are many places in the budget that can be cut, but I am worried that the current administration will start in on the "normal" military budget (not talking about "war" spending, but the day-to-day operations).

I fully expect them to let military pay drop again (compared to civilian work), even though half of the "overpaid" military members qualify for government aid already.

I work with many people that don't even make minimum wage when you look at the number of hours they work (sometimes 80+ hours a week, and we get salary so no overtime).

Clinton was a disaster for the military, but we got through it. With the current geopolitical climate, I'm not sure if we could get through another run like that without someone taking advantage it.

Hi Taliesin:

___It is not about cutting wages of those in the military, it is about cutting budgets of the entire military. We are so deep in the hole and the Military was the one area that had an extreme budget expansion over the past 8 years. We have to cut the budget because we have no choice.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

...which is funny because the military is the one thing that everyone but anarchists agree that the government SHOULD provide.

Hi Taliesin:

___It is not about cutting wages of those in the military, it is about cutting budgets of the entire military. We are so deep in the hole and the Military was the one area that had an extreme budget expansion over the past 8 years. We have to cut the budget because we have no choice.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

While the military did receive a very large increase in budget, much of it was needed.

Military budgets:
1992: $305B
2000: $288B
2008: $515B

The cuts that came from 1992 to 2000 caused some very severe problems. Equipment couldn't be maintained, personnel couldn't be retained or trained properly, new equipment couldn't be bought.

The increases in budget from 2000 to 2008 went to several things. Pay raises to diminish the discrepancy between military and civilian (same job, less pay for the military), fixing equipment that was allowed to fall into disrepair during the budget cuts, bringing training up to date, updating equipment, replacing equipment that couldn't be repaired, and buying updated equipment (such as "smart" weapons that reduce collaterall damage, a political necessity in today's world climate).

Even with the pay raises we have gotten (leading some to say we are now overpaid), we have many personnel risking their lives for less than miminum wage (battlefield conditions are pretty much 100+ hours a week).

I am fairly comfotable bringing in $38K last year (before taxes), but a civilian in my position brings in 3 to 4 times that (working fewer hours on top of it).
I've been in for over 18 years now.

...which is funny because the military is the one thing that everyone but anarchists agree that the government SHOULD provide.

That's true. But the degree to which we engage in expensive foreigh wars to force feed the American brand of democracy, to folks who don't really want it, is the central question, IMHO. Military operations are very expensive. We need a smaller military and a lot less adventurism!

We probably need to reign in technology spending by the military. We are already two decades in front of anyone else. Why do we need more? I'd settle for one decade lead.

That's true. But the degree to which we engage in expensive foreigh wars to force feed the American brand of democracy, to folks who don't really want it, is the central question, IMHO. Military operations are very expensive. We need a smaller military and a lot less adventurism!
We probably need to reign in technology spending by the military. We are already two decades in front of anyone else. Why do we need more? I'd settle for one decade lead.

In the figures I stated I made sure that they did not include the money spent for operations in one field or another. Those funds are seperate in the government's budget.

To be truthful, we can't shrink the military much more. Congress mandates that we must be able to engage two seperate fronts (one major, one minor, without instituting a draft). We are currently engaged in one minor front (Iraq) and one very minor front (Afghanistan).

My view is that one or both of these should have been over by now through the use of a more overwhelming force. It would have been cheaper in the long run to make Afghanistan a major front and follow on into Iraq when that was complete.

These activites do put some pressure on the regular budget. It makes it harder to retain trained people, requiring raises or bonuses to keep them. Planes get more use, and planes are aged by hours of use just like a car gets aged by mileage, so they take more maintenance even outside of the battlefield area. Injured personnel (mental and physical injuries) often require follow-on care that will come out of the regular budget.

And we really aren't that far ahead of some of the other tech out there. Our biggest advantage is still the training and guts of our volunteer force.

In the figures I stated I made sure that they did not include the money spent for operations in one field or another. Those funds are seperate in the government's budget.



Though I value and respect your opinion and information, I gotta tell you that the above reasoning just doesn't pass my test for logic. The Iraq money, call it what you will, was paid by the American taxpayer, and as far as I'm concerned, it largely went down the drain. (Carefully note that I don't blame this on the brave military men and women who did as they were asked.) In two years after we leave, Iraq will have a Islamic theocracy. Exact the thing that we originally wanted to prevent - if I remember the objectives correctly.

Though I value and respect your opinion and information, I gotta tell you that the above reasoning just doesn't pass my test for logic. The Iraq money, call it what you will, was paid by the American taxpayer, and as far as I'm concerned, it largely went down the drain. (Carefully note that I don't blame this on the brave military men and women who did as they were asked.) In two years after we leave, Iraq will have a Islamic theocracy. Exact the thing that we originally wanted to prevent - if I remember the objectives correctly.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew I was talking about the normal military budget and not the "wartime" spending. Democrats have developed a history of ignoring the military and I was pointing out that the increases during the last 8 years were partially caused by decreases in the previous 8 years. It's this budget that I am fearful of. Yes, spending did increase very dramatically, but much of it was needed to repair damage done previously.

Our opinions (and I do respect yours) as to the current wars (and the money spent on them) don't really factor into this part of the discussion (and I made sure I didn't touch too closely on my opinions, becuase that's all they are, opinions).

Am I mistaken or is this really only a claim to reduce how much debt we add each year rather than a claim to reduce the total debt?

Obama will basically cut down on how the national debt grows but won't even reduce it. And were supposed to celebrate?

Raising the taxes on those making over $250,000 is the easy part.

Streamlining government......:biglol:

My view is that one or both of these should have been over by now through the use of a more overwhelming force. It would have been cheaper in the long run to make Afghanistan a major front and follow on into Iraq when that was complete.

A "Pulse-and-Glide" military attack? Pulse in with lots of troops, glide out over time thinning the ranks still on deployment?:Banane13:

A "Pulse-and-Glide" military attack? Pulse in with lots of troops, glide out over time thinning the ranks still on deployment?:Banane13:

A quote from a Napoleon, who was a military genius:
"War must be made as terrible as possible." The idea behind this is to shorten the war and make the enemy fearful of ever angering your country. In the end the total amount of terror is less, but concentrated into a short time period just like the fuel use in a P&G.
I may not agree with the man on much, but I still respect his military thinking and almost every writer on the art of warfare has had something similar to say (including Sun Tzu and Clauswitz).

Move in, crush the enemy, move on. When the enemy is dead, you are done because a dead enemy can't fight you. Very much similar to a P&G where you turn off the engine completely after achieving your desired speed. No thinning out of the ranks needed, as the job is done. Everyone gets to leave. Iraq and Afghanistan are slightly different in that we didn't want to take over completely, but did want to remove the "evil" leaders of those nations. We may have had to leave some troops there for a while as a new government was started up, but if handled properly that would have been done by now without as much of the ongoing dangers (the inter-tribal fighting would still be there, but that's an ongoing battle that has lasted for centuries and rarely targets American troops).

Unfortunately the only way the budget will get balanced is for the government to start printing money to pay off the bills incurred. The economy will become another Jimmy Carter era of 18% inflation. Your $2 loaf of bread will become $4.

I've watched my portfolio decrease by 50% since 2006, also starting the same time the democrats took over the house and senate. Is there a parallell there, I don't know?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv02212009a20090224120328.jpg

Yes that is achievable but the questions now are where to get those fundings, how will you get or raise that money? It is very easy to say but very hard to do.

Obama is going to ruin this once great country.

I never in my wildest dreams thought politics would make me puke. But I've thrown up once a week ever since that but lick got into office.

Hi Jeff:

___As it stands, Obama has not spent but a few Billion and we are trying to stave off a Depression with a capital D for emphasis.

___As for the military receiving twice the budget it did in 2000, did anyone's income double between 2000 and 2008? I hope some did but the vast majority of the middle class did not :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Am I mistaken or is this really only a claim to reduce how much debt we add each year rather than a claim to reduce the total debt?

Obama will basically cut down on how the national debt grows but won't even reduce it. And were supposed to celebrate?

This is a key point I'm not sure everyone grasps. Cutting the budget deficit in half only slows the growth of our debt. The total public debt will continue to increase, along with the interest payments on said debt.

That being said, it is very hard (and perhaps unwise) to quickly decrease the federal debt in times of recession/depression...and politically it is nearly impossible under any circumstances. The tyranny of the majority will ensure pressure for lower taxes and higher benefits will continue unabated.