world

Obama to lay out spending plan

23 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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.

23 Comments
Login to comment

I have this dream in which the U.S. government gets completely out of debt, and starts building up a surplus...

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have this dream in which the U.S. government gets completely out of debt, and starts building up a surplus...

It's a dream based on ignorance of a basic fact: You have to build up surpluses in order to get completely out of debt. If you don't have a surplus, then you have deficit spending and more debt.

Anyway, the surplus was achieved in 1999 and 2000 under Bill Clinton. George W. Bush was selected into office and completely squandered the surplus through massive and unwarranted tax cuts for the rich. Especially when embarking on a couple of wars -- which Bush put on the "fight now, pay later" plan.

We should never forget how those tax cuts were sold: Bush told the American people that the surpluses represented an "overpayment" that just had to be returned to the taxpayers -- completely ignoring the debt that had piled up from 1976 through 2000. (He didn't actually "ignore it." He told the American people that they could have massive tax cuts AND maintain a surplus. The New Republic was the first to call him out on that lie.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You have to build up surpluses in order to get completely out of debt"

yabits, I'll re-phrase what I said so you can understand.

I want the U.S. government to start spending less than it takes in, and continue doing that until the debt is paid off, and after that to start building up a surplus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama has no interest in reducing the annual deficit or the accumulated national debt - unless it threatens his re-election of course. I expect that he will make all of the noises of someone who cares about the nations financial future. However, once he gets re-elected he will shift back into spending mode. Socialists think money grows on trees and that the private sector exists only to fund government programs in which everyone is made dependent upon. He knows no other way.

This is a total ruse on Obama's part. I don't expect that he will submit a plan to get the nation out of debt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember Obama's promise from the one-day summit at the White House in 2009?

" I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay. We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. ... We cannot simply spend as we please. "

Lies. All lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama will lay out new plans this week to reduce the federal deficit in part by seeking cuts to government programs for seniors and the poor,

Is CNN reporting that Obama wants to hurt seniors and the poor? no? double standard?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Umm can someone tell me exactly when America had an actual surplus of money? When Bush took office America was 5 trillion in debt. Then in 2006 we were something like 7.2 trillion in debt. Then Democrats took both houses of congress and then our debt rose steadily by trillions every year. OBama's plan is to spend spend spend, borrow from China, Print money and tax everyone that actually works for a living by labeling them as greedy and wealthy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Umm can someone tell me exactly when America had an actual surplus of money?

Well, never. If there is no government debt there is no money, no debt there are no billionaires. Where do you think money comes from? Americans used to understand that, now you just have a bunch of rich clowns shouting "oh my God we are in debt!!!" Well, exactly, of course you are. Should have thought of that 30 years ago before you started down this insane road.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Umm can someone tell me exactly when America had an actual surplus of money? When Bush took office America was 5 trillion in debt.

Hey, Bush sold his tax cuts on the basis that the current and projected budget surpluses represented an "overcharge" that had to be returned to the taxpayers. Not a single Republican called him on that lie.

Should have thought of that 30 years ago before you started down this insane road.

Straight and bright is the road that leads to destruction, and Ronald Reagan certainly took us well down that road, tripling the national debt in just over 8 years with voodoo economics. Carter's so-called malaise speech looks more prophetic with each passing year.

He gave few specifics, but he said the president believes taxes should go up on higher-income Americans and that cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will be necessary

We need to cut deeply into the defense budget too.

The Republican blueprint, unveiled last week by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would slash federal spending by $5 trillion or more over the coming decade and repeal Obama’s signature health care law

Anyone reputable looking into Ryan's plan says that it's a total joke. It will take decades under his plan to balance the budget, with the monies saved going immediately for more tax cuts. We need to restore the top rates to what they were the last time a Republican president managed to create a surplus. That would be Eisenhower and around 90%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It will take decades under his plan to balance the budget, with the monies saved going immediately for more tax cuts.

Agreed, Obama spending trillions in dollars we do not have in two years pushed the limit to decades to spend it down.

We need to restore the top rates to what they were the last time a Republican president managed to create a surplus.

Agreed, Democrats are soooo good at spending cash let us raise rates so they can even spend more. And let em borrow the difference from China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that as with Obama's countless pledges to end the Bush Tax cuts - whose extension Obama let Clinton sell the American public ("I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off...") - the president will continue to oppose spending cuts right up to the time he signs them, calls them "historic", and tries to get comfortable with yet another persona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where do you think money comes from?

Trees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Straight and bright is the road that leads to destruction, and Ronald Reagan certainly took us well down that road, tripling the national debt in just over 8 years with voodoo economics. Carter's so-called malaise speech looks more prophetic with each passing year.

Come on Yabits, at least be a little honest here. It was a Democratic congress that led that charge, and under Clinton, who had a surplus, a Republican congress pushed that. And again, under Obama, a Democrat congress once again pushed more spending then we can afford. I grant that Republican congress under Bush went off track, but the Dems have zero credibility on the subject.

The pathetic thing about Obama is, he can preach all he wants now about fiscal responsibility, but the last 2 years have been pretty telling. In just 2 years he spent more then all the presidents from Washington through Carter, combined. He may as well be saying the sky is green, only an idiot would believe anything he has to say on the subject of deficit reform.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on Yabits, at least be a little honest here. It was a Democratic congress that led that charge [under Reagan]

Facts are stubborn things. It is a fact that the budgets submitted to the Democratic congress by Reagan had more deficit spending in them than the budgets that congress ultimately approved. That was true for at least 6 out of Reagan's eight years in office. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, tried to tell the American people that politics was ruling over fiscal sanity in Reagan's White House, but dishonest conservatives wanted him silenced.

and under Clinton, who had a surplus, a Republican congress pushed that.

Clinton put forth his plan to cut the deficit within the decade in 1993, in the form of what Republicans called the biggest tax hike in the nation's history. Clinton specifically predicted that the deficit would be dramatically reduced as a result of the tax hikes. The Republicans predicted the end of the world. Honest witnesses know who predicted correctly.

Clinton's "higher" tax rates remained throughout the decade. I predicted at the time that dishonest conservatives would try to take credit for the surplus while neglecting one of the major underlying reasons, and that's another prediction that's proven right.

The new plan will have to provide for raising of massive revenues. Nobody with more than an 85 IQ thinks it was right to start wars without raising revenues to pay for them. Even worse, trying to keep the costs of the wars off the books the way the Bush administration did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republican blueprint, unveiled last week by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would slash federal spending by $5 trillion or more over the coming decade and repeal Obama’s signature health care law.

Ryan's plan would take whatever "trillions" are saved and turn around and hand them back out as tax cuts. The savings in Ryan's plan will force millions off of affordable health insurance and will deny aid to the people who need it most.

In the latest issue of The New Republic is a good article titled The Deficit Hawk's Case Against Ryan's Plan. Let's put aside the fact that Ryan has gone forth and lied claiming that his plan had fiscal conservative Alice Rivlin's support. Rivlin has come out strongly and flatly against the plan.

"The Ryan budget represents the victory of the Tea Party mentality over mainstream conservatism within the Republican Party.... Turning Medicaid into a block grant to the states—a key Ryan proposal—is a genuinely bad idea, because it will lead inevitably to cutbacks in care for low-income people who have nowhere else to turn, contradicting Ryan’s own pledge of a “secure safety net.”

"Under his proposal, CBO estimates, federal spending for Medicaid would be 35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than currently projected. What are the odds that hard-pressed states could pick up the slack? And if not, how many poor children would go without health care? How many elderly Americans without personal resources would go without decent nursing homes?"

Many Americans are going to die needlessly as a result of Ryan's plan should Congress be so crazy as to pass it. "Today, typical Medicare beneficiaries pay between 25 and 30 percent of health care costs out of pocket. CBO projects that under the Ryan plan, beneficiaries would be paying fully 68 percent of costs out of pocket by 2030."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Facts are stubborn things. It is a fact that the budgets submitted to the Democratic congress by Reagan had more deficit spending in them than the budgets that congress ultimately approved.

Facts are stubborn things aren't they. Especially when you ignore several things. For instance, the budget submitted to congress by the white house, is nothing more then a suggestion, one no congress has ever approved. Not even once. The budget that is passed, is passed by congress, and signed by the white house. Now the President may push for more or less spending in certain areas, but whats passed, always passes through congress. Meaning, whoever passes it, has to take credit for it. It was a Dem congress that controlled the purse strings under Reagan, a Republican one in 94 that forced Clinton to make cuts he really didn't want to make, and forced him to change direction from liberal to moderate. Those are the facts, and they don't go away just because you want them to. Both parties are to blame for the mess we find ourselves in, but only the conservatives seem willing to actually address the issue. Moderates and liberals in both parties seem to think they were sent to Washington to increase the size of the government and spend more. This unfortunately is no longer something we can afford.

Many Americans are going to die needlessly as a result of Ryan's plan should Congress be so crazy as to pass it.

This is of course because Republicans want to kill women and old people. Of course going by that logic, you could say that Dems want to murder babies. Actually saying Dems want to murder babies is more accurate, as Dems are almost without exception all pro-abort.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For instance, the budget submitted to congress by the white house, is nothing more then a suggestion, one no congress has ever approved.

It says something that the "suggestion" from the (Reagan) White House calls for more spending what the Congress eventually passed.

Meaning, whoever passes it, has to take credit for it.

Wrong. The president has a veto pen. He's the one who signs it into law, so he's obviously got to take credit too. But the thing is the budgets he eventually signed had less deficit spending than the budget he submitted to Congress.

94 that forced Clinton to make cuts he really didn't want to make, and forced him to change direction from liberal to moderate

The fact is that the overwhelming proportion of what balanced the federal budget under Clinton came from increased revenue (i.e. taxes) rather than decreased spending. It should also never be forgotten how the Republicans were all predicting dire calamity for the economy when Clinton's "massive" tax hikes were enacted. The exact opposite happened.

This is of course because Republicans want to kill women and old people.

Ayn Rand-ian types of conservatives (and libertarians) actually don't care if people die, feeling everything that happens to a person is their own fault. They consider it a sign of strength to hold to their principles no matter how many people have to die as a result of the policies formed out of those principles. The supposed "care" that conservatives facetiously express for fetuses is a sham when considering they really don't enough of a damn for people to help build a fair and decent society.

But they can afford to severely cut Medicare while giving away even more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. They can afford to start wars without making the slightest attempt to raise revenues to cover the costs of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It says something that the "suggestion" from the (Reagan) White House calls for more spending what the Congress eventually passed.

It also says something that though he submitted a budget every year, the Dems simply threw it out and went with their own plan. Just one of those annoying little facts you neglected to mention.

Ayn Rand-ian types of conservatives (and libertarians) actually don't care if people die, feeling everything that happens to a person is their own fault. They consider it a sign of strength to hold to their principles no matter how many people have to die as a result of the policies formed out of those principles.

Do these people really exist? I don't think I've ever met one. Most conservatives simply believe that its not the government that should be in there doing that work. Facts are stubborn things aren't they. Particularly when you go and make stuff up like this. Ayn Randian types... lol.

The supposed "care" that conservatives facetiously express for fetuses is a sham when considering they really don't enough of a damn for people to help build a fair and decent society.

Really? A sham? All the energy, all the protests, and its nothing but a sham? Hmm, perhaps you'll next say that abortion is just a sham, no infants were ever really harmed, all the women delivered healthy babies, and they all lived happily ever after... I mean, you are living in fairyland right?

Most conservatives actually do care about people who are in less fortunate circumstances. Many of us give to charities, or volunteer our time. The difference between us has to do with philosophy as to what the role of government should be in our lives. You seem to think that the government should be there to wipe you butt, and clean up your mess from the day you're born, til the day you die. I think, that people need to take responsibility for themselves. And that if you can help others, you should. But then I guess I'm more in line with JFK who famously said, 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.' Think most libs have forgotten that in their headlong rush to shove a nanny state down everyones throats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but only the conservatives seem willing to actually address the issue.

Once again, if a prior Republican president like Ronald Reagan wanted to "address the issue," he would have submitted budgets to Congress with less deficit spending than what the Congress eventually passed. Six out of 8 of Reagan's budgets had more deficit spending. So, faced with that reality, I don't see how conservatives want to address the issue -- at least not seriously.

Particularly when you go and make stuff up like this. Ayn Randian types... lol.

Both Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan are self-admitted disciples of Ayn Rand. Greenspan had written of society being divided between creative "producers" and "parasites." He thought the parasites ought to be allowed to perish. This is what a lot of conservatives believe. And they want to be the ones to determine who the parasites are. This is why Paul Ryan's plan can so freely attack the aged and underprivileged while giving yet more tax breaks to the richest Americans.

All the energy, all the protests, and its nothing but a sham?

That's right. If conservatives really wanted to prevent the practice, they would be offering more carrots -- free pre-natal care and a stipend with guaranteed child-care or adoptions to any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy and elects to not abort. Instead, they offer only sticks: Criminalization of the poor women who have them, and death threats to the coctors who perform them.

Many of us give to charities, or volunteer our time. The difference between us has to do with philosophy as to what the role of government should be in our lives. You seem to think that the government should be there to wipe you butt,

History has provided ample proof that rich people giving some scraps from their massive abundance do not go anywhere towards covering the need. As we have seen with the banking and financial meltdown, a great deal of the "need" has been instigated by the misdeeds of those people at the top of the pyramid helping themselves, getting ever richer while ordinary people lose their jobs, their homes, and their health through the stresses of the ordeal. Republicans would have government stand by and do nothing -- which is precisely the attitude that got us into this mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. Particularly when you go and make stuff up like this. Ayn Randian types... lol.

In the context of Paul Ryan's alternative plan, I happened to receive the latest Newsweek (4/18) magazine in the mail today and, lo and behold, there is a detailed article on Ryan's deep devotion to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Quoting Ryan: "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." As the article states: "[Ryan] continues to view Rand as a lodestar, requiring his staffers to digest her creepy tracts."

Rand's views were that only capitalists were considered to be contributors; ordinary workers were viewed as parasites -- useless parasites. (She despised people she considered "ordinary," and wrote pieces where she lavished praise on a serial-killer.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The attitude that got us in to this mess, was one of entitlement. That the government will and should provide.

That is only true when applied to the folks at the top of the pyramid: That they were entitled to take massive risks with their "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions while government should look the other way until it was too late. Then they expected that the government would and should provide them with a tax-payer funded bailout.

That's certainly what Bush and Paulsen did. This was a case of unregulated capitalism failing more spectacularly than any Western European nation's "socialism." There are plenty of social democracies there doing just great. Closer to home, look at Canada. They didn't let their banks get involved in the US's Ponzi scheme and their banks are doing quite well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has no intention of cutting any government spending. If he was truely interested in cutting the budget he could have done so last week when Congress was attempting to pass a budget. A budget that should have been passed in 2010.

AND THERE IS STILL NO BUDGET.

Obama is still in "campaign" mode. All talk and no action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AND THERE IS STILL NO BUDGET.

Sounds like Republican campaign mode. Too bad they don't have any real candidates.

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