world

Obama says Republican budget 'wrong for America'

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

Republican budget is wrong for America... Thats because it doesn't spend an extra trillion dollars right?

Far as I'm concerned whats most wrong for America is the current President. I don't think theres ever been a more corrupt or incompetent President in American History. Congratulations Obama, you're number 1!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think theres ever been a more corrupt or incompetent President in American History.

Harding

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NPR had Reagan's budget director on, and he was pretty clear that both sides are wrong (and both are lying to the middle class). I tend to agree. We can't do just taxes or just cuts, but we need to do both.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moliner: "corrupt and incompetent". In what way? Because he saves $4 trillion over 12 years instead of $4 trillion over 10 years? Because he doesn't do it on the backs of the poor and elderly? Because he cuts spending AND raises taxes on wealthier people? I think your priorities are very clear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(Obama) outlined a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan over 12 years. ... (The Republican plan) would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Those who bother to comprehend while reading will understand there is not much significance in the final number of these two budgets. Those who judge a man by actions rather than by kneejerk prejudice will understand Obama has made a serious proposal containing a great deal of compromise by the left. Those who value the society that the US has built over the past 100 years must reject out of hand the Republican budget proposal or welcome the return of a "Grapes of Wrath" - type society.

The choices are clear to those who think. I'm confident that America will embrace Obama's proposal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna: If he keeps framing the argument like he did he will surely win at the end of the day. You'll notice that the Republican's response was that he was too partisan, almost unfair, but so far, not as much a fight over the numbers. They have a losing hand and they know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We can't do just taxes or just cuts, but we need to do both."

tsurubushi: That IS what the president is proposing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And both sides are too scared to cut one dime from the military/industrial complex. The people truly running American might be described as being as benign as a group of fascists can be. But fascists they are none the less. Their slice of the pie is non-negotiable, thus we only hear about cutting meds for grandma and slashing community development.

And those fascists don't care about our embarrassing debt either. Since the U.S. outspends China, Russia, GB, France, Israel, Iran and everybody else on the planet - Yes, America on one side, everyone else on the other - they know no one can try to collect by force and have a chance of winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

paulinusa, an interesting article the other day looked at projected debt levels in the most recent Republican budget proposal (and these were the budget authors' projections): these cascaded upward in a way any Teapartier would violently reject. At the end of the day, as you mentioned, the difference is not the final numbers, it is what constitutes those numbers.

The Republicans have most certainly jumped the shark with their latest proposal. And, by the way, I recommend that you Wikipedia the phrase "jump the shark" - it has a most pertinent origin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mangaman: The Republican proposal calls for the military budget to stay at 2012 levels for 10 years. President Obama's budget call for $400 billion in cuts over 12 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna: Yes, and even with their own budget proposal the Republicans will HAVE to continue to raise the debt limit. Why? Because the cuts in spending won't make up for the loss of revenue from tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Look for this to be kept very quiet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is right, only the Democrats' budget is right for America, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moliner: "corrupt and incompetent". In what way? Because he saves $4 trillion over 12 years instead of $4 trillion over 10 years? Because he doesn't do it on the backs of the poor and elderly? Because he cuts spending AND raises taxes on wealthier people? I think your priorities are very clear.

Corrupt, because his administration is corrupt. Incompetent because he is incompetent. Do you need me to cite examples of both or can you figure this out for yourself? Ah, perhaps you need a hand getting started. Very well, the handling by the Justice department of the Black Panthers. (Corrupt) The handling of the BP oil spill. (Incompetent) That should get you started, tons more examples where those came from.

I have to admit, this crap you you said about 'balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly' bothers me. So much so that I think Republicans should start going around and saying Dems support rape of women and murder of babies. That is to say soft on crime and promoters of abortion. Amazing how you can spin stuff eh? And the great thing is, its about as accurate as what Dems are saying, and about as inflammatory as well. I really have been wondering lately why Dems get away with this crap, while Republicans are held to a 'higher' standard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenair: It's the most currupt administration in history because the Justice Dept. dropped charges of voter intimidation against 3 Black Panthers? That's the best you can come up with? As for the budget, they couldn't help themselves and went the route of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations while cutting medicare and medicaid for the retired. Fair or not, that appearance resonates with average people. I think that's what "bothers" Republicans, who've clearly been outmaneuvered. I predict they will have to backtrack on their proposals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Harding"

Actually, that's more myth than reality. Harding wasn't corrupt himself and he died about the time the corruption scandals of his cabinet came to light. And I wouldn't say he was incompetent but he didn't make many friends by cracking down on the union revolts.

Obama, on the other hand, is just a hard-core radical socialist. The people who elected him are just getting what they voted for, even if they voted in ignorance and because McCain was just bad an option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is right, only the Democrats' budget is right for America, lol.

Sarge, apparently all your years in the military did not equip you with the concept of "compromise." Granted, it is a rather grown-up concept: you want things, and I want different things, and we are aware of our mutual desires and their respective relative strengths, but we keep our eye on the ultimate goal to keep things going.

My 20 years of marriage has made me good at this.

The far right is basically saying accede to our demands or we'll shut the whole place down. It is the Tea Party that is declaring their way or the highway. They leave no room for compromise, even amongst their like-minded people. They have - and will continue to - eat their own children.

Mah, some people never learned the proper lessons on the kindergarten playground. Let's see how far it gets them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna:

" Sarge, apparently all your years in the military did not equip you with the concept of "compromise. "

I am not Sarge, but let me out that "compromise" is a dubious concept when people want to go in opposite direction. A "compromise" in that case would be the status quo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

where's the war? Normally Americans go to war on things. War on drugs, war on whatever. They need a war on debt. Declare a state of emergency, ration the nation's energy and food and get the entire economic output of the country to pay off that $14 trillion in debt. Even then it would take years. Forgo your bonuses and salaries for a couple of years. Y'know, for the country. Call it Victory Wages.

Then maybe there is a chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not Sarge, but let me out that "compromise" is a dubious concept when people want to go in opposite direction. A "compromise" in that case would be the status quo.

Very good, WilliB! Welcome to Democracy as the American founding fathers designed it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you want things, and I want different things, and we are aware of our mutual desires and their respective relative strengths, but we keep our eye on the ultimate goal to keep things going.

When you both know there is no money in the till, does one of you ignore it, and charge away, "to keep things going?"

Or do both realize changes in spending; separating the "wants" from the "needs" and keeping the credit card away is the only way to keep on budget till more money is earned?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even Jon Stewart rips Obama on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Going to be long two years until 2012 the way this is turning out.

It's too bad that the President has continued to defend policies that the American people have aptly demonstrated by their votes. The Democrats lost in November and lost big. The electorate returned the Republicans back into power with the express mandate to tackle the overspending and get fiscal sanity back in Washington. President Obama and his administration are still tone deaf and refuse to change course from the previous two years.

Congressman Ryan's plan is not perfect but it does have parts that deserve merit and serious consideration. Both the Democrats and Republicans should and could agree to a long term deficit compromise reduction plan that instead of raising taxes or playing class warfare embarks on a path that actually does raise tax revenues in the long run without killing economic growth. You create more private sector taxpayers in the first place and broaden the revenue stream base. You create jobs, real jobs in the private sector not public works jobs funded by Govt. You pursue policies that gives private savers the confidence again to invest in companies and start ups and get people off of the unemployment roles which also reduces Govt spending. Congressman Ryan's plan does have that vital component in the mix and instead of President deriding it should have shown though he disagreed with the approach the creation of private sector jobs would be one area that he and the Republicans could come to a compromise to solve our long term debt and start from there. He could have framed the debate in that way and shown the American people he was serious and in fact got the message sent to him last November. I'll give him credit though his speech did show his concern about the job picture. His, and getting himself re-elected by crass campaign rhetoric and the next two years since he has now "set the tone" will be just as divisive for the American people as his first two years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Laguna:

Those who value the society that the US has built over the past 100 years must reject out of hand the Republican budget proposal or welcome the return of a "Grapes of Wrath" - type society.

The reason the US is in the middle of a fiscal emergency is because of the type of society that has been built over the past 80 years. Socialism is unsustainable over the long term - there are dozens of examples of this over the past 100 years from across the globe and across a large swath of races and cultures. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are not sustainable as government programs. The tipping point for each of these programs is quickly approaching. Simply raising taxes to pay ever more for fundamentally flawed systems is a dead-end.

The 'Grapes of Wrath' analogy is particularly apt in the case of these programs. They are sapping the financial resources of the nation making everyone poorer by the day. It is better to begin moving these programs to the private sector now rather than later when they will consume 100% of the governments budget. Budget deficits of $1.5 trillion a year is not sustainable for very long.

President Obama is already the worst president in American history and his first term is barely half over. He is bankrupting America and his budget for the coming year - both the initial one and the one he rushed out after Rep. Ryan's budget came out - contain huge budget deficits like no nation has ever seen for as far as the eye can see. Even Ryan's budget - which Liberals consider to be draconian - does not lead to a balanced budget. But at least it goes in the right direction.

Obama believes that Socialism (ie. collectivism) is what America is all about and to oppose it is un-American. Of course, that is exactly backwards from the American founding tradition of individualism. Although he is American - his ideas are not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bebert61 said: Harding wasn't corrupt himself and he died about the time the corruption scandals of his cabinet came to light.... Obama, on the other hand, is just a hard-core radical socialist.

Okay, I am stumped. Does this mean Obama is not corrupt, or does this mean Obama is corrupt because he is socialist?

And what is a radical socialist? Wouldn't that be just a communist?

Bebert, I am going to take a mad stab here and declare you American. I think anyone from any other country in the world would declare Obama an absolute moderate, dead center, if not leaning a bit to the right. He has talked a lot of left, but in reality he has expanded the military campaign in Afghanistan and allowed corporate bailouts to happen same as Bush. He also announced a decision to expand offshore oil drilling in Alaska, the gulf, and the east coast as a point of national security. But that was one month before the Deepwater Horizon exploded and gave us the runaway gusher.

Anger over the healthcare thing alone does not make Obama a radical socialist. Not sure if you realize that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

paulinusa: The Republican proposal calls for the military budget to stay at 2012 levels for 10 years. President Obama's budget call for $400 billion in cuts over 12 years.

As much as I laud your response to Molenir, I cannot find proof of the above proposed cuts by Obama anywhere. Also, I find it hard to believe the article would have missed it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama believes that Socialism ....

Senator Bernie Sanders -- the only self-identified "democratic socialist" in the Senate was asked if he thought President Obama was socialist. His response: "That's ludicrous." (Bernie knows that Obama is a moderate. About as "socialist" as Dwight Eisenhower.)

The reason the US is in the middle of a fiscal emergency is because of the type of society that has been built over the past 80 years.

This is a ludicrous statement too. It denies the growth of the American middle class in the post-WWII decades -- a growth made possible by New Deal policies. Prior to the 1930s, a large majority of the American elderly died miserably in the poor houses. Ryan and many Republicans apparently look upon that time fondly as the "good old days."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are not sustainable as government programs.

Ah, so Ronald Reagan lied when he raised payroll taxes to put Social Security on a footing enabling it to last through the better part of this century. Sounds like a good Republican argument: don't trust government - believe us, we're them.

Medicaid and Medicare are more complex problems, but two points are germane: larger units bring efficiency; and no one cares if Grandma dies. Seriously: HMOs are by definition in the business for profit, and turning indigent and elderly health needs to their tender arms will result in deaths on the street.

"Grapes of Wrath" - yes, the society that exists is not some Ann Rand fantasy, it is real people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's too bad that the President has continued to defend policies that the American people have aptly demonstrated by their votes. The Democrats lost in November and lost big.

It would be helpful to dissect this example of Republican arrogance. What voters demonstrated by their votes in 2010 was exactly what they demonstrated in 2008: anti-incumbency. The fact is that a large majority of Democrats defeated in 2010 were first-termers who had squeaked out narrow victories in largely Republican-held districts in 2008 -- and thus were sitting ducks in an off-year election with an economy still very much in the tank after the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

The Bush years were an unmitigated failure -- achieved after he inherited a federal budget in balance with projected surpluses. I don't believe that any Republican president could have done better in the last two years than President Obama has.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Mangaman

And both sides are too scared to cut one dime from the military/industrial complex.

Well said! The US has been spending as much as the rest of 190 countries around the world put together the past few years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

just default already. The USA relying on the Chinese dictatorship for its existence has to end along with the 300 times difference in wage disparity, millionaires and billionaires milking off the population. The facade of freedom must come back to reality at some point. Not until after its collapse though

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Laguna:

Ah, so Ronald Reagan lied when he raised payroll taxes to put Social Security on a footing enabling it to last through the better part of this century. Sounds like a good Republican argument: don't trust government - believe us, we're them.

No, Reagan and Tip O'Neil did not "lie", they merely prolonged the inevitable. Social Security is it's current incarnation is a pay-as-you go ponzi scheme not much different from what Bernie Madoff had going. There is a lot of wealth on paper, but no actual money to back it up. IOU's are not wealth, it is merely a liability that our children and grandchildren will have to pay so we can live now. It's immoral and unsustainable. As the average age of citizens increases, it becomes ever more unsustainable.

"Grapes of Wrath" - yes, the society that exists is not some Ann Rand fantasy, it is real people.

And government do-gooders and socialism kills real people. How does Medicaid and Medicare help when physicians will not take them as patients because the government will not reimburse them for the full amount of the services provided? Socialism has killed more people over the last century than any other wayward ideology. How can people live longer and more healthier lives as the nation itself gets poorer and poorer due to government mismanagement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits:

Senator Bernie Sanders -- the only self-identified "democratic socialist" in the Senate was asked if he thought President Obama was socialist. His response: "That's ludicrous." (Bernie knows that Obama is a moderate. About as "socialist" as Dwight Eisenhower.)

Senator Sanders is indeed a Socialist and has therefore quite naturally aligned himself with the Democrat party. There are many in the Democrat party who believe the exact same things that Sanders does but do not call themselves Socialist because it would make it harder for them to get elected. And Socialism, like Liberalism, has a bad name that they would prefer to keep at arms length. I think that if President Obama, Minority Leader Pelosi, and others like Rep. Frank, Maxine Waters, and Henry Waxman were comfortable facing the electorate calling themselves Socialists they would - becaue that is what they are. Why do you think President Obama goes to such lengths to disassociate himself with the word 'Socialist' even though he believes in using the government to redistribute the wealth of American citizens and whose proudest acheivement is a collectivist reorganization of the American Health Care system.

Socialism is a failed political and economic ideology that people who cannot understand human nature continue to try and make work no matter how many times it fails. The Democrat party relies on government coercion to implement their domestic policy agenda. That is "wrong for America". It is wrong to treat people as servants of government and not as individuals with their own hopes and dreams. If Liberals - or should I say 'Progressives' - want socialist policies they should pursue their ideology outside of government coercion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Social Security is it's current incarnation is a pay-as-you go ponzi scheme not much different from what Bernie Madoff had going.

Ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding how this or any insurance program works. Social Security is only a ponzi scheme if everyone is guaranteed to live beyond the age where they are eligible to collect the income insurance. It's a matter based upon statistics and actuarial tables -- as is any insurance program.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding how this or any insurance program works.

Except you simply have a lack of understanding about how a retirement system should work. Medicare and Medicaid are government insurance programs. Social Security is a retirement system.

Even if you run SS like an insurance program instead of a retirement program it is still a complete mess. I seriously doubt that the Federal government would allow any private insurance company to operate the way that Social Security does. Private companies must be able to pay insurance claims and therefore must have a certain amount of money saved and readily available to pay such claims. Social Security is pay as you go. The money that has been paid into the "insurance" system has been spent by the government - it hasn't been saved. It can only get that money back by redeeming the paper with the Treasury. Where does the Treasury get that money from? Well, it doesn't have it saved somewhere - it was given to federal agencies and has been spent. It must be retrieved from the general revenues accrued through taxation. Where will that money come from? It comes from future generations who are saddled with the debt of past generations on a massive scale.

You talk about actuarial tables but apparently the people who set up and later tinkered with the program over the years never bothered to look at them. Since this is now a pay as you go system - because the accumulated wealth in the system has been spent and the interest forgone - there will soon be two people for every beneficiary. Not much of an insurance system is it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, its just time to pack things up...US is dieing..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialism has killed more people over the last century than any other wayward ideology.

Another golden and ridiculous example of fearmongering and ignorance. He might have meant communism, but even holding communism directly responsible is pretty whack forcing of square peg ideology into round hole concepts. The 1950s are over. Could we lose this McCarthy/ Reds under the beds hysteria and nonsense already? All our best allies are socialist and doing just fine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only socialism in America is the imaginary one that is trotted out to justify and distract from the insane neo-liberal, crony capitalism that is killing the country.

I am not a socialist myself, but I am also not an insane neo-liberal crony-capitalist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only socialism in America is the imaginary one that is trotted out to justify and distract from the insane neo-liberal, crony capitalism that is killing the country.

I am not a socialist myself, but I am also not an insane neo-liberal crony-capitalist.

Put my 15 trillion this guy's bill. My debt is imaginary...and party on Dudes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neo-liberal, crony capitalism

As opposed to neo-con crony capitalism which is not killing us?

We need partisan hackery about as bad as McCarthyism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Senator Sanders is indeed a Socialist and has therefore quite naturally aligned himself with the Democrat party.

Well, there only two major parties and the Democrats are the more moderate and rational than the vast majority of today's Republicans.

You know as soon as the "Obama is a Socialist" card is played that the person playing has proven themselves incapable of having a sane and rational discussion of the real challenges facing the US, including the budgetary ones.

Where were all these Republicans who are crying about the debt during the free-spending Bush years -- when projected surpluses that could have been used to pay down the debt were turned into deep red ink? And that red ink spending doesn't include the wars, which were charged to the national credit card? The nation was back to running near-record deficits by 2004, and the Republicans still wanted their boy back in the Oval Office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, there only two major parties and the Democrats are the more moderate and rational than the vast majority of today's Republicans.

Really depends on how you see things doesn't it. I mean these days, if you believe that the government should be there to wipe your butt, and clean up your messes from the day you're born to the day you die, then you are a moderate. If you think you should take responsibility for your own actions, as well as your success or failure in life, then you are a radical extremist.

You know as soon as the "Obama is a Socialist" card is played that the person playing has proven themselves incapable of having a sane and rational discussion of the real challenges facing the US, including the budgetary ones.

Actually it just proves how much the debate has shifted. Anyone who says Obama is not a socialist, either has no concept of what socialism is, or is merely a partisan political hack. Theres really nothing else to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who says Obama is not a socialist, either has no concept of what socialism is,

Obama's policies are much farther left than Dwight Eisenhower's.

Actually it just proves how much the debate has shifted.

The fact that there are traditional conservatives who've spoken out against Ryan's budget actually proves how far radical loonies have driven the Republican Party to the far right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's policies are much farther left than Dwight Eisenhower's.

Correction: Should read "*aren't** much farther left...."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's policies are much farther left than Dwight Eisenhower's.

You are comparing his positions to those of a man more then 60 years ago, a man who repeatedly stated that he was in fact a liberal. In point of fact, his policies bore that out. Regardless, those pushing for an ever expanding government like Obama, who are such strong believers in the nanny state are in fact socialists. Thats what socialism is all about, creating a nanny state. It is not however sustainable, as the Europeans are finding out.

The fact that there are traditional conservatives who've spoken out against Ryan's budget actually proves how far radical loonies have driven the Republican Party to the far right.

Most of the conservatives against the budget, are against it because it doesn't go far enough. Balancing the budget in 25 years is not sufficient. The alternative plan, one actually promoted by Dems, admittedly because balancing the budget is such a radical idea, nearly passed the house instead of the Ryan bill. That would have been a far superior document. One that balances the budget not in 25 years, but rather in 8. Regardless though whether you are for or against this, everyone is realizing that we can no longer kick this down the road. That structural reform of entitlement spending is a necessity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are comparing his positions to those of a man more then 60 years ago,

And you are calling President Eisenhower a "left-wing radical socialist."

That's how far the Republicans have strayed from reality. How can we trust their judgment on anything?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir at 06:09 AM JST - 19th April. Regardless, those pushing for an ever expanding government like Obama, who are such strong believers in the nanny state are in fact socialists. Thats what socialism is all about, creating a nanny state. It is not however sustainable, as the Europeans are finding out.

A failure of Obama will be labeled a failure for socialism and the Republicans will make this their standard and use it in the next election and beyond. The American people will renew their perceived distaste for anything socialist. Should this take place it will be much more difficult for any other politician with a sincere socialist conviction to bring to the forefront legislation that does specifically help the American worker through the ideals of socialism. As such, it may well turn out that Obama has done the Republicans a great service in allowing them to finally have a wedge to drive between the American people, the Democrat and their philosophical socialism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits -

Obama's policies are much farther left than Dwight Eisenhower's.

Nice to see some of my fellow Democrats catch on, even if it took a few years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How would Obama know? He is illiterate when it comes to economics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites